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

«13456

Comments

  • Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :) 

    Thought this would be a better way to display things, while I tend to wonder about how large the thread might grew with numerous examples posted to one thread.

    A large thread promoting => New Interpreter's Bible (12 vols.) (NIB) is preferable; easy reference for the various examples.  Thanks for typing a lot; for several examples, I have desired to compare and contrast with current content in my Logos library.

    Noticed NIB has 11,591 pages; Logos.com tends to have Table of Contents and up to 5 % available for look inside, which would be 579 pages.  Hence recognize potential for many more examples until NIB has enough pre-orders for resource development.

    Current pre-order progress:

    image

    With 11,591 pages, the pre-publication price per page is $ 0.24


    By the way, to become the largest forum thread, need over 674 replies.

    Keep Smiling [:)]

  • Dan Francis
    Dan Francis Member Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭


    PSALM 82:1-8, SHOW JUSTICE TO THE WEAK

     

                                     <Page 1005 Ends><Page 1006 Begins>

     

     

    COMMENTARY

    As if to supply a rationale for Ps 81:9, Psalm 82 portrays the death of all other gods. In so doing, it offers a clear picture of the ancient Near Eastern polytheistic culture that formed Israel’s religious background. In Canaanite religion, the high god El convened the council of the gods (see this concept also in 1 Kgs 22:19-23; Job 1:6-12; and perhaps Ps 58:1-2). In v. 1, Israel’s God has displaced El and convenes what proves to be an extraordinary meeting. Israel’s God proceeds to put the gods on trial (see the trial metaphor also in Isa 3:13-15; Hos 4:1-3; Mic 6:1-5). After the gods are indicted and charged (vv. 2-4), the case against them is summarized in v. 5, and the sentence is announced (vv. 6-7). The psalmist then pleads for God to claim the dominion once held by the gods and to rule justly (v. 8). In short, the council of the gods is permanently adjourned, and so Psalm 82 affirms again the message that forms the theological heart of the book of Psalms: God rules the world (see Psalms 2; 29; 47; 93; 95–99; Introduction).

    82:1-4. The key issue in the trial of the gods is the way they “judge” (fpv sApat, v. 2) or administer “justice” (v. 3; note the two other occurrences of the same Hebrew root—“holds judgment” in v. 1 and “judge” in v. 8). Acting as both prosecutor and judge, God accuses the gods of judging unjustly and showing partiality (v. 2). The inadequacy of such behavior is apparent in Leviticus 19, part of the Holiness Code, as well. There God commands the people of Israel to “not render an unjust judgment” and to “not be partial” (Lev 19:15 NRSV). Indeed, Lev 19:2 exhorts, “You shall be holy, for I the LORD your God am holy” (NRSV). Thus injustice among humans, and certainly among the gods, violates the very nature of divinity and the divine will for the world.

    The importance of justice in the human realm is emphasized in vv. 3-4. The series of imperatives functions not to exhort the gods but to indict them. As the series unfolds, it becomes clear that justice is a matter of ordering the human community. In v. 3, “give justice” and “maintain the right” are parallel, just as the nouns “justice” and “righteousness” are frequently parallel (see Amos 5:7, 24; 6:12). Justice and righteousness are not just abstract principles or ideals; rather, they have to do with the very concrete matter of how human beings relate. For the God of Israel, the criterion of justice involves what is done for the weak, the orphaned, the destitute, the needy (see Pss 9:7-9, 18; 10:17-18; 68:5-6; 113:7; 146:7-9). Not surprisingly, justice and righteousness also appear as parallels in the psalms that proclaim God’s reign or describe the reign of God’s earthly agent, the king (see Pss 72:1-2; 97:2; 99:4; see also 96:10, 13; 98:9). Here again, the establishment of justice and righteousness is the measure of divinity and of human life as God intends it.

    Verse 4 allows even more specificity. Justice and righteousness involve the very concrete matter of how power is distributed in the human community, and thus the matter of who has access to life. In biblical terms, only persons whose lives are threatened need to be rescued or delivered. For instance, the psalmists often plead in life-threatening situations for God to rescue them from the wicked (see Pss 17:13; 71:2, 4). The verb “deliver” (lxn nzl) is used to describe what God did to save the Israelites “from the hand of the Egyptians” (Exod 18:9-10 NIV). The word “hand” describes “grasp,” or more to the point, “power.” The gods should have delivered the weak and needy from the power of the wicked 

     

                                     <Page 1006 Ends><Page 1007 Begins>

     

    (v. 4), but it was precisely the wicked to whom the gods have been partial (v. 2). For the God of Israel, things are right in the human community when power is distributed in a way that all persons, especially the powerless, have access to the resources that enable them to live.

    82:5. The speaker in v. 5 could be interpreted as the psalmist acting as narrator, but it is more likely that God continues to speak here. The “they” in v. 5 refers to the gods, and the case against them is summarized. The result of their ignorance and failure is disastrous. The shaking of “all the foundations of the earth” represents a worst-case scenario. In the ancient view of the world, the mountains were the foundations that held up the sky and held back the waters from flooding dry land. The shaking of the foundations meant that the whole creation was threatened by the return of chaos (see Isa 24:18-19; Ps 46:1-3). In short, v. 5 suggests that injustice destroys the world! Where injustice exists, the world—at least the world as God intends it—falls apart. L. K. Handy argues that v. 5 is the structural center of Psalm 82, and its claim is certainly of central importance.317

    82:6-7. Because the gods have failed to do justice, they are guilty of destroying human life and community as God intends them. Thus they deserve to die (vv. 6-7).

    82:8. The death of the gods opens the way for God’s reign of justice, for which the psalmist prays in v. 8 (see “rise up” in Pss 3:7; 9:19; 10:12). Having affirmed God’s sovereignty, the psalmist also prays for and awaits God’s rule; that is, the perspective is eschatological (see Commentary on Psalm 2; Introduction). But the psalmist is sure of the outcome. The final “you” is an emphatic pronoun; God rules the nations and the cosmos.

    REFLECTIONS

    Psalm 82 raises the question of how we are to hear such an overtly mythological text in our very different world. The first step is to approach the psalm as a poetic expression of faith rather than a literal description of a trial in heaven. The truth of the psalm’s message lies in its ability to illumine reality, which it does in a remarkable way—so much so that in our day, and with our distance from the ancient Near Eastern worldview, it is possible for us to appreciate the psalmist’s conviction that injustice destroys the world. Indeed, we see it happening all around us—in our cities and neighborhoods, in our schools and churches and homes. That the foundations of the earth are still shaking reinforces that Psalm 82 does not literally describe the death of the gods, but instead denies ultimacy to any claim on our lives other than God’s claim. The apostle Paul said it well in 1 Cor 8:5-6: “Indeed, even though there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as in fact there are many gods and many lords—yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist” (NRSV). Paul also refers to these so-called gods as “the rulers and authorities” (Eph 3:10; Col 2:15; see RSV “the principalities and powers”). These “rulers and authorities” are still with us in diverse forms—wherever and whenever anyone benefits from denying the God-given humanity of others. As Mays suggests, “As long as nations and their peoples do not see the reign of God as the reality that determines their way and destiny, there will be other gods who play that role.”318

    While such gods are still with us, Psalm 82 affirms, in Paul’s words, that “for us there is one God.” J. P. M. Walsh argues that the Canaanite polytheistic system elevated economic survival to ultimacy at the expense of compassion.319 Thus the religion of the gods legitimated

     

                                     <Page 1007 Ends><Page 1008 Begins>

     

     a hierarchical social system in which those at the top prospered and those at the bottom suffered. The religion of the one God, the God of Israel, countered by affirming that God’s very nature is compassion. The faith of Israel was founded on the conviction that the one God hears the cries of victims and acts to deliver them from death to life (see Exod 3:7). The followers of the one God became an alternative community on the ancient Near Eastern scene. For them, the gods were dead.

    For Christians, all rulers and authorities other than the one God have been dethroned; the gods are dead. We profess to live solely under the rule of God, which Jesus announced and embodied in a ministry of justice and righteousness, directed especially to the weak and to the needy. (See John 8:34-38, where Jesus cites Ps 82:6 in defense of his claim to be one with God on the basis of doing God’s works; the sense of the argument depends on the Jewish custom of understanding “gods” in 82:6 as the people of Israel rather than divine beings.) We cannot help hearing the plea of v. 8 in terms of the prayer Jesus taught his disciples: “Your kingdom come. Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven” (Matt 6:10 NRSV, italics added).

  • Dan Francis
    Dan Francis Member Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭


    ROMANS 3:1-14

    Romans 13:1-7, God’s Call to Obedience to the Authorities

    Link to: Romans 13:1

     

     

                                     <Page 715 Ends><Page 716 Begins>

     

     

    COMMENTARY

    Theological fashions change, and pressure points move from one exegetical location to another. A previous generation found Romans 9 intolerable, first reading into that chapter a doctrine of absolute predestination to salvation or damnation and then angrily rejecting it. Others have taken a similar view of Rom 1:18-32, hating the very idea of “wrath” as a theologically barbarous concept. Now, after a century in which totalitarian governments have devastated continents, decimated nations, and dehumanized millions of their subjects, it is scarcely surprising that the critical searchlight has swung around and come to rest on the little paragraph now before us. As though by some scapegoating process, these seven verses have been struck out of the canon, vilified, and blamed for untold miseries. They have enabled whole generations of critics to combine their sociopolitical instincts and prejudices with their status as professional exegetes, and to leap-frog over Paul onto what looks like the high moral ground. This is always a deeply satisfying pastime.

    But when the sound and fury have died away, we are left wondering what all the fuss was about. Yes, many wicked and powerful governments have appealed to Romans 13 to justify their every move. But have people not done that with words of Jesus himself? If enemies sow weeds in a field of wheat, is the wheat farmer to be blamed? There are many parts of the Bible that can be, and have been, twisted to serve violent and self-serving ends.505 If we cut them all out, there might be little left. Exegesis, and the determination to live at least with its results, and perhaps even by them, is always a risk, part of the risk of an incarnational religion or faith. Romans 13 is no exception.

    This paragraph, I shall suggest, neither needs nor deserves opprobrium. It is not a fully blown “Theology of Church and State”; indeed, as is often pointed out, our post-Enlightenment notion of “State” would have been foreign to Paul. One can hardly blame a writer if, in the course of a letter about something else, a small aside does not contain the full sophisticated and nuanced treatment that subsequent generations might have liked. Paul’s point here is essentially quite simple; it fits into the line of thought of Romans 12—13 as a whole; it need not be wished away in an effort to undercut legitimating arguments for totalitarianism, and indeed it needs to be present for the balance of the previous chapter and paragraph to be maintained.

    Many theories have been advanced, predictably, as to what Paul was talking about and why. I here list only the major ones.506 (On the unwarranted suggestion that the entire paragraph is a gloss, see the Overview for 12:14—13:7.)

    (1) This passage is a general statement about ruling authorities. It applies to all legitimate authorities all the time. It is based on a general belief in the desire of the creator God for order within all societies.507

     

     

                                     <Page 716 Ends><Page 717 Begins>

     

     

    (2) It is a particular statement about the Roman Empire, based on (a) Paul’s belief that it was in some sense God-given, and (b) his experience of sensible magistrates protecting him from persecution, and looking (c) for the safety of the Jewish and/or Christian community in Rome at this historical moment.508 

    (3) It is a very particular statement about the specific moment in the Roman Empire when, with a new, fresh emperor in the throne (Nero’s early years were as promising as his later years were terrible), Paul believed there was at least a moment when the church should trust Rome and live content within its world.509 

    (4) It is a statement of something that is now true as a result of the victory of Jesus over the powers of the world in his death and resurrection.510 

    I regard (4) as simply mistaken. Paul does not argue his point on the basis of christology or the gospel. The passage is so close in tone and content to various Jewish writings of the period and before (see below) that there is no reason to suppose that this is a new viewpoint generated by the Christian gospel.

    There are further variations within (1), (2), and (3). Maybe Paul intends the paragraph as a general statement (1), but is also influenced by elements of (2) and (3), for instance by the need to distance himself from the groundswell of Jewish resistance against Rome in the Middle East.511 Maybe he has in mind the particular situation of a tiny Christian group, including many Jews, in the city from which Jews had been expelled a few years earlier for rioting “at the instigation of Chrestus.”512 Maybe he held view (2) or perhaps (3) at the time of writing, but found that his subsequent experience in Roman prisons led him to a very different view, which emerges in Philippians.513 Within subsequent interpretation, variants of (2) and (3) have been taken to mean that the passage cannot be insisted upon as relevant for all time.

    There may well be elements of particular historical situations visible in the passage; but what Paul actually wrote still looks very much like a general statement about ruling authorities, not a pragmatic assessment of Rome, or the present situation.514 This is both, so to speak, good and bad news for those who are anxious about the application of the passage to subsequent situations. The more general the passage, the less it can be taken to glorify Rome, and hence to have Paul legitimating the tyranny that within a decade or so had done grievous violence to the church. The more specific the passage (Paul making a positive comment on the Roman Empire), the easier it appears to relativize it and declare it irrelevant to other times and places. However, there is an irony in this specific reading (as in [2] and [3]). By having Paul declare that Rome is a good thing (and thereby having him say nothing much about other rulers and governments), exegesis finds itself unable to see other parts of Paul, and other parts of Romans, as subverting the Roman imperial ideology: Romans 13 is regularly appealed to as an argument against a “counterimperial” reading of the rest of Paul. However, if Paul really did intend it as a general statement, based on God’s appointed order in creation (as per [1] above), the less it stands in the way of this counterimperial reading. It would be ironic if, in seeking to avoid a totalitarian reading of this one text, we make it so Rome-specific that it blinds us to the far deeper anti-imperial message of Paul’s gospel as a whole.

    The wider context gives good reasons to support (1), even if we want to nuance the question of how Paul’s readers would have heard what he was saying. As we have suggested, 13:1-7 goes closely with 12:14-21, which we would be right to assume Paul would have said to any church at

     

     

                                     <Page 717 Ends><Page 718 Begins>

     

    any time. Paul is well aware that persecution may come, and even if we date all the prison letters after Romans we are surely not going to say, with 1 Thessalonians and 2 Corinthians behind him (let alone the experiences ascribed to him in Acts), that he had a pragmatically rosy view of authorities in general. Just as in 12:14-21 he seems to have drawn on traditions about the words and actions of Jesus, so there may be a sense here, as in at least one gospel tradition, that even when they are grievously deceived and almost demonic, ruling authorities still have a certain level of divine authorization (see John 19:11; cf. the interesting exchange in Acts 23:1-5).

    More especially, the point he stresses throughout 12:14-21 dovetails exactly into what he says in 13:1-7. One must not call down curses on persecutors, nor repay evil with evil, nor seek private retribution; punishment is God’s business. Now we see how Paul supposed, in part at least, that God went about that business. Of course, Paul believed in a final judgment (1:32; 2:1-16; 14:10) when all wrongs would be put to rights. But he now articulates, as a central point in 13:1-7, a standard Jewish and then Christian belief: that ruling authorities are what they are because God wants order in the present world. God is not going to allow chaos to reign even in the present evil age. Chaos and anarchy enable the powerful, the rich, and the bullies to come out on top, and they invariably do. God desires that even in the present time, even in the world that has not yet confessed Jesus as Lord, there should be a measure of justice and order. The point can easily be observed by thinking of situations where magistrates and judges are perceived to be failing badly in their duty to keep this order: before too long, vigilante groups and lynch mobs arise, taking “justice” into their own hands. One of the underlying theses that binds 12:14-21 and 13:1-7 together is therefore this: justice is served not by private vengeance but by individuals trusting the authorities to keep wickedness in check. Knowledge that the authorities are there to look after such matters is a strong incentive to forswear freelance attempts at “justice.”

    This, as I say, looks back to many clear Jewish precedents. Isaiah spoke of pagan rulers accomplishing God’s purposes. Jeremiah urged Israel in exile to pray for the welfare of Babylon, because if Babylon was prospering, Israel would as well (Isa 10:5-11; 44:28—45:5; 46:11; Jer 29:4-9; 27:6-11 [God gives Jerusalem into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar]; see also Dan 1:2; 2:21, 37-49; 4:25, 32; 5:18; Ezra 6:10; Prov 8:15-16; Bar 1:11; 1 Macc 7:33). The book of Esther turns on the potentially risky but eventually satisfactory position of Jews under pagan rule. Many Jews in the Second Temple period were happy to see God’s hand in the rise, as well as the fall, of great powers, and even though the early hailing of Rome as such a power must have left an extremely bitter taste in later mouths, the principle was established, and articulated in sundry writings of Paul’s period: God intends that there should be good and wise rulers, and if rulers know what their business really is they will seek divine wisdom to help them accomplish it (e.g., Wis 6:1-11).515 Romans 13:1-7 belongs fair and square on this map. It occupies a similar space, ironically enough, to that occupied by the more moderate Pharisees, the Hillelites, who were content for the moment to live and let live (though still believing in the eventual Age to Come and the worldwide rule of the Messiah), rather than the fiercer Shammaites who would have seen such a position as a compromise. From one point of view, if Paul’s conversion made him look, on this point, more like a Hillelite than the Shammaite he had been before, that only serves to emphasize how very Jewish, how “natural,” a position like this would seem.516 

    But did Paul not believe, and hint at several points in Romans itself, that the gospel and rule of Jesus the Messiah, the world’s true Lord, subverted the gospel and rule of Caesar, whose cult was growing fast in precisely the cities (Corinth, Ephesus, and so on) where he spent most of his time?517 Yes; and this is perhaps part of the point. If the gospel of Jesus, God’s Son, the King who will rule the nations (1:3-4; 15:12) does indeed reveal God’s justice and salvation, which put to shame

     

     

                                     <Page 718 Ends><Page 719 Begins>

     

    the similar claims of Caesar (1:16-17; Phil 2:5-11; 3:19-21); if it is true that those who accept this gospel will themselves exercise a royal reign (5:17); and if Paul suspects that his audience in Rome are getting this message–then it is all the more important to make it clear that this does not mean a holy anarchy in the present, an overrealized eschatology in which the rule of Christ has already abolished all earthly governments and magistrates. Precisely because Paul is holding out for the day when all creation will be renewed (8:1-27), when every knee shall bow at the name of Jesus (Phil 2:10-11), it is vital that the excitable little groups of Christians should not take the law into their own hands in advance.518 In particular (and with events in Palestine in mind), it is important that his readers do not take his covert polemic against the imperial ideology as a coded call to a Christian version of the so-called fourth philosophy.519 This is where Paul’s probable awareness of the riots under Claudius, and the reputation that both Jews and Christians will have gained in Rome because of them, must come into play. God does not intend that Christians should become agents of anarchy, which would replace the tyranny of the officially powerful with the tyranny of the unofficially powerful. The ultimate overthrow of pagan power comes by other means, and Paul has outlined in Romans 5 and 8 what those means are. Rome could cope with ordinary revolutions. Rome could not cope, as history bears witness, with a community owing allegiance to the crucified and risen Messiah as the world’s true Lord.

    In fact, reading Romans 13 against the backdrop of the extravagant claims made within the burgeoning imperial cult highlights one point in particular. According to Paul (and the Jewish tradition in which he stands) the rulers are not themselves divine; they are set up by the one God, and they owe this God allegiance. Romans 13 constitutes a severe demotion of arrogant and self-divinizing rulers. It is an undermining of totalitarianism, not a reinforcement of it. By implication, if the rulers themselves are given the task of judging wicked people within their sphere of authority, they themselves will be judged by the God who set them up. Paul does not say this explicitly; but in 13:4 he twice describes the rulers as God’s “servants” (diavkonoi diakonoi), and if he is capable of pointing out that God’s servants in the gospel will be judged on how they have performed, there is every reason to suppose that God’s “servants” within the civic community will themselves also face an ultimate tribunal (cf. 1 Cor 3:10-15; 4:1-5, having described himself and Apollos as God’s diakonoi in 3:5; 2 Cor 5:10). This, however, is not his point at the moment (just as he does not say, in Romans 5—8, what will happen to those who are not “in Christ”), and we must remind ourselves that this is not intended as a full and balanced statement of everything Paul might have wanted to say on the subject. The main thing he wants to get across to the Roman Christians is that, even though they are servants of the Messiah Jesus, the world’s rightful Lord, this does not give them carte blanche to ignore the temporary subordinates whose appointed task, whether they know it or not, is to bring at least a measure of God’s order and justice to the world. Government and magistrates may be more or less good or bad; but–and this is Paul’s basic point–government qua government is intended by God and should in principle command submission from Christian and non-Christian alike.

    Reading Rom 13:1-7 in the context of 12:14-21 raises a question, which Paul does not here even touch on: What happens when the “persecutors” (12:14) are the same people as “the governing authorities,” and are using their God-given power for that purpose? Since Paul does not raise the question here, we cannot press this passage for a hint of an answer; but we might again compare Acts 23:1-5. Even if this is merely a stylized scene constructed by Luke, it expresses the same balance we might get by reading Romans the way I have suggested, adding Philippians and the Thessalonian correspondence to the mix, and then returning with the same question. “Paul” in this story declares that God will strike the “whitewashed wall,” the judge who is behaving illegally. When confronted with the news that he is addressing God’s high priest, he apologizes formally, recognizing that he should not speak evil of a ruler. But he does not retract his charge that the ruler in question has behaved illegally and will be

     

     

                                     <Page 719 Ends><Page 720 Begins>

     

    judged for it. A similar pattern emerges when Acts places Paul before pagan magistrates. He will submit to their authority, but he will also remind them of their duty (see Acts 16:19-40; 22:22-29; 25:6-12). We may be right to suspect that Paul could see, not far away, the battle that would come, in which Caesar insisted on an absolute allegiance that left no room for Jesus as Lord. Less than a century later, Polycarp died at the stake because of that; but even he, it seems, held on to a view of magistracy very similar to Paul’s.520 

    In particular, Paul always insists on seeing the present in the light of the future. Romans 13:1-7 does not describe a new situation brought into being by the eschatological events concerning Jesus; but the obedience of Christians to earthly magistrates takes place under the sign of ultimate judgment (cf. again 2:1-16). This does not mean, as Paul’s own example bears out, that one must be politically and socially quiescent until the great renewal of all things. That is the slur made on the good name of inaugurated eschatology by those who want to insist on the full renewal right away. Preaching and living the gospel must always be announcing and following Jesus, rather than Caesar, as the true Lord. But the eschatological balance must be kept. The church must live as a sign of the coming complete kingdom of Jesus Christ; but since that kingdom is characterized by “righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit,” it cannot be inaugurated in the present by chaos, violence, and hatred (cf. 14:17). The methods of the Messiah himself (12:14-21) must be used in living out his kingdom within the present world, passing away though it may be.

    Romans 13:1-7 is about the running of civic communities, and the duty of Christians toward them. It does not mention or allude to the interactions between different civic communities or nations. It was because of this that later Christians developed a theory of “just war,” to argue at a new level that under certain circumstances it may be right to defend the interests of a nation or community, by force if necessary; and it is against that in particular that various pacifist movements have protested. Romans 13 is sometimes called as a witness in this discussion, but its relevance may be doubted (see the Reflections). 

    13:1.  “Every person” (NRSV) is literally “every soul”–a clear enough indication, if such were needed, that by “soul” Paul means more than “the immaterial element within a human being.” The word yuchv (psyche) regularly refers, in the New Testament, to the whole human being seen from the point of view of the person’s interior life, motivation, and intention. Here it is a way of indicating that every person as an individual must obey this command. The command itself is to “be subject” (NRSV), or “submit” (NIV, NEB/REB); not necessarily “obey” (JB, NJB), though that will usually follow. The point is that one must regard the governing authorities as having a rightful claim on one’s submission. The word has echoes of military formation: one must take one’s place in the appropriate rank.521 

    But who are the “authorities” to whom one owes this submission? Elsewhere in Paul there are times when the “rulers and authorities,” the “principalities and powers,” are primarily spiritual beings, shadowy but powerful entities that stand behind the visible and earthly rulers. This seems to be the case in, for instance, Rom 8:38-39. Sometimes it seems as though he intends to refer simultaneously to both earthly and heavenly powers; this is how 1 Cor 2:6-8 is usually read, and how Col 2:14-15 must be read. But here, though it is unlikely that Paul ever made a complete distinction between earthly and heavenly dimensions of civic authority, his primary focus is on the earthly rulers themselves. They are the ones who bear the sword (v. 4). They are the ones to whom one pays taxes (vv. 6-7).522 

    The problem, of course, at the level of understanding Paul (to postpone for a minute the question of applying him today), is that in 1 Corinthians 2, and again in Col 2:15, Paul declares that the cross of Jesus Christ has defeated the powers. How can he now suggest that one should be subject to them? The answer seems to lie, whether or not Paul wrote Colossians, in the great christological poem in the first chapter of that

     

     

                                     <Page 720 Ends><Page 721 Begins>

     

    letter, in which it is affirmed that all things, including all powers and authorities in heaven and on earth, were created in, through, and for Christ, and are also reconciled in, through, and to him.523 The tension, in other words, is not only between Romans 13 and Colossians 2; it is between Colossians 1 and Colossians 2. And–since Paul seldom sees the need to say everything he could in principle say on a topic every time he brings it up–it is perfectly feasible to propose that Paul in this case was stressing one of the more positive aspects of the “powers.” Some have argued, as noted above, that Rom 13:1-7 belongs with Col 1:20: that Paul commands submission to the powers because they have now been reconciled in Christ. But it seems much more likely that he does so in parallel with Col 1:16: he commands submission because they are part of God’s good created order. The fact that they are in rebellion does not of itself mean that submission is inappropriate.

    Paul, characteristically, gives an explanation for the command: all authority is from God, and (the specific form of the general statement) the actually existing ones have been put there by God. This is not a specific commendation of the Roman Empire as against the ruling systems of other times and places; it is a general point about civic authority. It belongs with mainstream Second Temple Jewish tradition, and has parallels, including one surprising one, in the NT (e.g., Wis 6:3-10; John 19:11).

    13:2-4.  Paul backs up this initial command and explanation with a short discussion of what happens when people resist the authorities, and of the fact that these results are part of God’s appointed order. Resistance incurs “condemnation,” or “judgment” (NRSV, NIV) (v. 2), because rulers hold no terrors for those who do good, but only for wrongdoers (v. 3a). Paul could no doubt have given counterexamples from his own recent biography, but his point here concerns God’s intended order, not its corruptions. He then turns the point around (vv. 3b-4): if you want to go about your business without fear of the authorities, do what is good, and they will praise you. That is their God-given function. They are “ministers” (diakonoi), “stewards” of God for this purpose: their delegated task is to praise good behavior. Conversely, then (v. 4b), if you do evil, you should be afraid, because authority has the right and responsibility to punish. Once again, the authority is God’s “steward,” this time to administer punitive justice–that is, “wrath”; this is the point at which the authority must do what the private individual may not do (12:14-21)–a point regularly missed in many popular-level discussions of the judicial role of civic authority.

    13:5.  This to-and-fro discussion of the appointed role of “authority” and the way in which “you” may encounter it, for good or ill, leads Paul back to reiterate his initial command, now with an extra reason: one must therefore submit, both because the alternative is “wrath” in this sense, and also because, recognizing the God-given role of authority, the educated Christian conscience ought to become disquieted if it finds itself resisting God’s “stewards.” Paul does not often mention the role of conscience in Christian behavior, but when he does, as here, it appears that this is not because it is marginal in his thinking but because he takes it for granted. The word occurs elsewhere in Rom 2:15; 9:1; most of the other Pauline references occur in 1 Corinthians 8 and 10; see also 2 Cor 5:11.

    13:6-7.  Conscience, too, prescribes therefore that one must pay taxes.524 Once again Paul gives the authorities a high status: they are God’s leitourgoiv (leitourgoi), public servants (in a world where “public service” regularly had cultic overtones at least, sometimes explicit association with religious functions).525 They must therefore receive what is due to them, whether the material dues of direct and indirect taxes (that is the likely distinction between the two words used here) or the non-material dues of respect and honor. This last point shows once more, not least in relation to Paul’s own practice in Acts, what is and is not meant. Paul was always ready to honor the office even while criticizing the present holder. Though of course one hopes that the holder will prove worthy of the office, and one knows that sometimes holders prove so unworthy as to need removing from office, being able to respect the

     

     

                                     <Page 721 Ends><Page 722 Begins>

     

    office while at least reserving judgment about the holder is part of social and civic maturity. And, for Paul, being able to say “the existing powers are ordained by God” while living under a system that, as he makes clear elsewhere, was bristling with potential or actual blasphemy and injustice, is part of Christian maturity–a part he urges his Roman readers to make their own.

    REFLECTIONS

    1. Romans 13 has attracted so much opprobrium, particularly in the twentieth century where most thinking Westerners developed a more than justified horror of totalitarianism, that to many it seems counterintuitive to do anything but reject it outright. Either Paul did not write it, people say, or he did not mean it like it sounds, or he was just plain wrong. Whatever else you do with this passage, it is implied, you ought not to be caught agreeing with it.

    Until, of course, your house is burgled. Or someone you love is murdered. Or you are cheated in business, or even in sport. Then, quite suddenly, you want someone to be in authority. Nobody enjoys the presence of a referee or umpire when they are trying to foul an opponent, or sneak offside; but everybody appeals to them when the other side do it. Actually, we none of us want to live in a world where the bullies get away with it, except when we are planning to do the bullying ourselves.

    Libertarian histories of Western culture read the story of the last millennium as one of increasing social and civic freedom. The long march from Magna Carta to universal adult suffrage was not, in fact, as smooth an upward rise to freedom as it is sometimes made out to be. Oppression and systemic injustice still exist within every Western democracy. But since we tell our story as one of dethroning authorities and discovering new freedoms, we are bound to find Romans 13 a surprise, or even a shock. Unless we are actual anarchists, however, we will soon acknowledge explicitly that all societies need some regulation, some ordering, some structure of authority; and we will soon recognize that this ordering is no use unless everyone is, at least in principle, signed up to it or, failing that, able to be coerced into going along with it.

    Romans 13:1-7 then issues commands that are so obvious that they only make sense if there might be some reason in the air not to obey the civic authorities. More or less everyone in the ancient world, with the possible exception of Cynic philosophers on the one hand and occasional radical groups like the extreme Shammaite or “zealous” Jews on the other, would have shrugged their shoulders and accepted that some form of civic authority was a necessary part of an ordered world. If a moral or religious teacher took the trouble to explain the rationale for such authorities, and insisted that those who embraced that moral or religious system were bound to obey them, that would be of itself a sign of what we have, in fact, seen both elsewhere in Romans and elsewhere in Paul: that the average Christian might well have supposed that there might be grounds for not doing so. You only put up “No Smoking” signs where people are likely to want to smoke. And, since Paul himself frequently hints at what the grounds for not obeying the authorities might be, we do not need to speculate for long about them. They are the sovereignty and saving justice of the one true God, unveiled in action in the world’s true Lord, Jesus the Messiah.

    Romans 13, in short, carries a hidden “nevertheless” at its heart. Jesus is Lord; nevertheless, his followers must obey their earthly rulers. This is not because the rulers have somehow, in theory, already submitted to his lordship, but despite the fact that they have not done so. The authorities are part of the present world order, the good and wise structure of God’s original creation. Not to submit might look like a noble piece of overrealized eschatology, claiming to belong already to the new world promised when the full day dawns (see 13:11-14); but to make that complete claim ahead of time is in fact to move toward a dualism in which the goodness of the present world, even in its not-yet-redeemed state, is denied. That, in fact, is what millenarian and similar movements have classically done.

     

     

                                     <Page 722 Ends><Page 723 Begins>

     

     

    2. The authority of the state, however, is strictly limited here by the rubric that stands over the whole paragraph: the rulers exist by God’s will and at his pleasure. The book of Daniel is a graphic description of how this works out within a pagan world and how the people of God may find their way through the resultant moral minefield. It is noticeable that even when human rulers become fatally guilty of hubris, and court their own destruction, this does not signal the end of all human rule. Even in the apocalyptic scenario in Daniel 7, the one who eventually sits on a throne dispensing judgment is “one like a son of man.” Just as there is a dialectical movement between Daniel 1—6 (the stories of human kings and God’s people) and Daniel 7 (the enthronement of the Ancient of Days and the vindication of “one like a son of man,” representing God’s people), so in Romans 13 the Christian belongs in the tension between the present existence, owing submission to earthly rulers, and the promised future “day.” Just because we have become horribly aware of the dangers of brutal, self-serving, self-justifying “governments,” it does not follow that there are no errors in the opposite direction.

    3. Putting together Rom 12:14-21 and 13:1-7 has the salutary effect of reminding us of one of the most important, if pragmatic, reasons for there being governing authorities. Private vengeance, whether individual or (as in the lynch mob) corporate, is shocking in itself and can easily spiral out of control into vendettas and generations of senseless brutality. Where authorized policing fails, or is felt to be failing, the authority vacuum is quickly filled, and the results are seldom happy. Of course, commanding people to pray for their persecutors, not to repay evil with evil, to live at peace with all, and above all not to avenge themselves, is excellent advice at a purely personal level. People who allow vengeance, however apparently justified, to dominate their motivational life will become eaten up by it. It is a way of allowing the evil that someone has done to you to continue to hold you in its power. Part of the enormous breakthrough achieved by Jesus in his teaching and death is found just here: that to suffer innocently and not to retort or retaliate is to win a far greater victory than can ever be achieved by hitting back. It is to win a victory over evil itself.

    4. I write this in the wake of September 11, 2001–a date people will recall for decades, perhaps centuries, and shudder at the memory. Terrorist atrocities against innocent and unarmed civilians, especially on so large a scale, cry out so loudly for punishment that any comment might seem superfluous. Yet in the debates that followed that terrible day Romans 13 was frequently invoked in support of military action by the United States and its allies against other countries; and one of the great problems of Christian moral discourse has been precisely that Romans 13 does not deal with such matters. That is why “Just War” theory was invented, in an attempt to develop the idea of magistracy, of a justice that kept a society in balance, beyond the borders of a particular jurisdiction and into the realms of conflict between nations. The problem with this is, to put it perhaps oversimply, that Romans 13 is dovetailed into an argument against the taking of private vengeance (12:14-21). When punitive and retaliatory action is taken against a nation, or a group within a nation, it becomes difficult to maintain that it is judicial and legitimated by Romans 13. That is not to say that such action is wrong or unjustified, only that this text will not support it. Many have concluded, rightly in my view, that the only way forward is the establishment of a worldwide justice system that will carry moral weight across different cultures and societies. Unfortunately, one of the obstacles to this is precisely the determination of some of the more powerful nations to oppose such a thing, lest they themselves be brought to account for the ways in which they have used, and perhaps abused, their own power. Romans 13 will not help in addressing these issues, then. But the rest of Romans, setting forth God’s justice, freedom, and peace over against those of Caesar, could certainly do so.

     

     

                                     <Page 723 Ends><Page 724 Begins>

     

     

    Romans 13:8-10, LOVE FULFILLING THE LAW

    Link to: Romans 13:8

    COMMENTARY

    This little passage on love and the law is clearly a summary of issues that Paul lays out more fully elsewhere (e.g., Galatians 5). It reverts to the theme of 12:3-13, and it may be, as we suggested above, that Paul intends this whole section (chaps. 12—13) as some kind of chiasm (see the Overview on 12:1—16:27). Within this, 13:8-10 plays a similar role within chapters 12—16 as a whole to that played by 1 Corinthians 13 within 1 Corinthians 12—14 as a whole, identifying the characteristic that must be central to all authentic Christian community life.

    The thematic difference between this passage and 12:3-13, however, is that there Paul was dealing with life within the Christian community, and here he appears to be advocating a love for neighbors of any and every persuasion. The opening words of v. 8, indeed, if read without a break from what has gone before, look as if they are simply saying “always pay your bills on time”; we must assume that he is still talking about the wider community represented by those who levy taxes and demand respect (v. 7). And this view of a wider community alerts us again to a wider reference within Romans. Just as 12:1-2 looked back to 1:18-32, seeing in Christian worship the reversal of idolatry and dehumanization, so the present passage looks back to 2:17-29 in particular. With 3:27-31; 8:1-8; and 10:5-11 in the background, Paul sketches a brief but telling picture of how the Torah is fulfilled in that love of neighbor which will bring admiration, rather than blasphemy, from the watching world (cf. 2:16-17). Here, in other words, are the “true Jews” (see 2:28-29), those who are bringing God’s light and love to the world. This coheres well with the context of Gal 5:14, the other passage where Paul says almost exactly the same thing (see also 1 Corinthians 13, where, though Paul does not mention Torah, the matchless exposition of love and its abiding permanence reminds us of Jewish eulogies of Torah or wisdom; see Sirach 24).

    The passage consists, typically, of an opening statement and explanation (v. 8), followed by an extended explanation of the explanation (v. 9), leading to a summary that repeats and reinforces the original explanation (v. 10).

    13:8.  Although the idea of “debt,” immediately after instructions concerning money, using the cognate word ojfeilav" (ophelias, 13:17; “what is due them,” NRSV; “what you owe them,” NIV), is most naturally taken literally, Paul has twice already in Romans used it as a metaphor, once for his own obligation to bring the gospel to the whole world (1:14) and again to indicate the Christian’s obligation to live by the Spirit and not the flesh (8:12). For the sense of obligation we may compare 4:4; 15:1, 27; the root regularly carries both literal and metaphorical meanings in early Christian writings.526 The context thus breathes life into what

     

     

                                     <Page 724 Ends><Page 725 Begins>

     

    might be for him a nearly dead metaphor, giving a particular force to the command to love: This is a debt, owed to everyone, that can never be discharged.

    The explanation, in the second half of the verse, should not be misunderstood. Paul does not, of course, mean “Love fulfils the Torah; therefore love is the way to earn righteousness with God.” He does not suppose that this was ever the purpose of Torah. Rather, the purpose of Torah was that Israel might be God’s light to the world; Israel was “entrusted with God’s oracles,” but proved unfaithful. Those who are justified by faith “apart from the works of the Torah” (3:28) are now, perfectly logically, instructed to live as the people through whom what the Torah by itself could not do is accomplished (8:3-8; 10:1-11). People who love their neighbors thus “fulfill Torah,” both in the immediate sense that they will never do any of the things Torah forbids, and in the wider sense that through them God’s way of life will be seen to advantage. The Greek for “the one who loves the neighbor has fulfilled the law” could also be translated “the one who loves has fulfilled the other law” (to;n e{teron novmon ton heteron nomon; cf. ti" eJtevra ejntolhv tis hetera entole, “any other commandment,” in v. 9). This has sometimes been adopted by exegetes with the supposed meaning that love fulfills, not Torah itself, but the “other” law–that is, the one that Jesus gave to replace it. This is very awkward in view of the quotation from the Decalogue that follows immediately; and Paul rarely uses the verb “love” absolutely, without an object. The apparent echo of heteron nomon in 7:23 is a pure accident.

    13:9-10.  Paul explains (gavr gar) what he means by saying that love fulfills Torah. First he simply states that all the commandments are in fact summed up in the command to love (v. 9); then he sums this up to the effect that love does no evil, and draws the conclusion that love is indeed Torah’s fulfillment (v. 10).527 Loving one’s neighbor is itself, of course, a command in Torah (Lev 19:18, quoted here), though not part of the Ten Commandments. Paul was not the first to see it as a summary of the whole law; this is one of several passages in Romans 12—13 where we are right to detect echoes of the teaching of Jesus himself (Matt 22:37-39 and par.; see also Jas 2:8, where this commandment is described as the “kingly law,” presumably meaning “the command given by the king,” i.e., Jesus; cf. 2 Macc 3:13). The specific commands he lists here consist of four of the last five of the ten (omitting the bearing of false witness, a deficiency that one good ms and a few lesser ones tried to rectify), following the LXX order of Deut 5:17-21 (adultery, murder, theft, coveting) rather than that of Exod 20:13-17 (placing theft before murder).528 The idea of being able to sum up Torah in a single phrase has a long history in Judaism of which Paul was no doubt well aware.529 

    Though v. 10 opens, unusually, without a verbal connection to what precedes, it is clearly intended as a summary of v. 9. It should not be supposed that the full achievement of “love” consists simply in doing no evil; as Dr. Johnson said, to do no harm is the praise of a stone, not a man. Rather, love, on its way to higher and more positive goals, takes in this negative one in a single stride: If love seeks the highest good of the neighbor, it will certainly do no wrong to him or her. We should notice that Paul leaves no room for the slippery argument whereby sexual malpractice has been routinely justified in the modern world; “love,” as the summary of the law, includes the command not to commit adultery, and could never be confused with the “love” that is frequently held to excuse it. One only has to ask the question, whether adultery routinely builds up or breaks down human communities and families, to see the point. Once again, then, the “fulfillment of Torah” does not mean the performance of “good works” designed to put God in one’s debt; rather (and perhaps this is why Paul writes v. 8 in this fashion), it is the discharge of one’s own debt, to one’s neighbor but also to God. This passage takes its place alongside Paul’s several earlier statements about the Torah, confirming the positive understanding of it for

     

     

                                     <Page 725 Ends><Page 726 Begins>

     

    which we argued earlier, and making it clear once again that ethical obligation is not undermined but reaffirmed by a proper understanding of justification and Christian life.

    REFLECTIONS

    In the light of the suggestion that this passage belongs to some extent at least with 12:3-13, we may reflect on both together.

    1. The obvious centrality of love within early Christian ethics is so well known that we often overlook how striking, almost revolutionary, this was. Judaism, of course, cherished the command to love, but did not highlight it in the same way. Within the pagan world there was far less emphasis on anything that approximates to the early Christian meaning of “love,” modeled as it was on Jesus himself. This oversight on the part of contemporary readers goes with the more practical problem that we all give lip service to the idea of love but we do not usually reflect on how to do it. Granted the prevailing context of romanticism and existentialism, it is normally assumed that love will “just happen” as long as people are sincere and do what comes naturally. The moral history of the twentieth century should have given the lie to this, but since it is a convenient thing to believe (giving one the feel of virtue without the need for hard moral work) the belief continues unabated, being propagated by most movies, many novels, and a million shallow sermons. We urgently need moral reflection, at every level of church and society, on what exactly love is, what it means and does not mean, and more especially the steps of moral learning and effort required to attain it. The very fact that this sounds so “inauthentic” (“You mean I’ve got to pretend?” one can hear people asking) is a measure of how far we have allowed ethical reflection to diverge from early Christianity.

    2. Of course, Paul wants love to be “genuine” (ajnupovkrito" anypokritos, “unhypocritical”). But here is the strange thing. If you try to treat someone you thoroughly dislike as though in fact you cared very deeply for them–if you try to think of how it is to live inside their skin and walk in their shoes–then it may well happen that a genuine sympathy arises, and from that real affection, and finally an unhypocritical love. This is, after all, more or less what Paul is commending in 12:19-21. The love of which Paul speaks is tough; not simply in the sense of “tough love” as applied to the difficult task of bringing up children, though that may be true as well, but in the sense that, since it does not spring from the emotions but from the will, love will grit its teeth and act as if the emotions were in place, trusting that they will follow in good time. If we reduce ethics to emotions, we lose not only consistency of behavior but also the very possibility of moral discourse.

    3. The unity of the church, highlighted in 12:3-8, remains a goal to be worked for despite the apparent failure of many unity schemes of the period between 1960 and 2000. Here Paul stresses the need for humility and mutual respect between different gifts within a Christian community; when everyone is doing what they are called to do to the utmost of their powers, the whole body is in good health. The ecumenical task may consist not least in the humble recognition, between the different denominations, that we may after all have different callings–overlapping, interlocking, most likely, but perhaps different as well. This is not to minimize doctrinal differences, which still matter; nor is it to connive at the scandalous fragmentation of the body of Christ, or the “one body in Christ” as here. It is to suggest that within the greater unity for which we must work we should be prepared to allow room for the particular tasks, characteristics, and genius of the different “churches” that have grown up over the years, particularly since the Reformation. The ecumenical movements of the twentieth century had a dangerously modernist feel (bringing everything together into one grand and possibly grandiose structure); maybe the ecumenical movements of the twenty-first century, though they must avoid the postmodern

     

     

                                     <Page 726 Ends><Page 727 Begins>

     

    trap of easygoing acceptance of all differences, which results in further fragmentation, should work at ways of humbly affirming appropriate differences while learning how to celebrate and share all we hold in common.

    4. In particular, the common life of love in the one body should also give rise, as in 13:8-10, to the command of love for the neighboring non-Christian world. This must of course work on a daily basis at the local level, in the street, the theater, the office, the factory. There will always be room for improvement–and for humility, penitence, and fresh starts–at that level. Equally, we should not ignore the bracing call to whole churches, and to communities and even countries that think of themselves as basically Christian, to act toward their neighbors in the global village with that same love, the debt that can never be discharged. One of our major world problems, bringing a myriad other evils in its wake, is precisely financial debts that can never be discharged because the compound interest increases faster than ailing economies can service it. Since the lending countries belong to the part of the world that, rightly or wrongly, is seen as “Christian” (and in some cases sees itself thus), we can scarcely avoid the problem, with all its ironies. “Love does no wrong to a neighbor”; working out what that means personally and collectively, and putting it into practice, is one of the most urgent tasks we currently face.

    Romans 13:11-14, LIVING BY THE RISING SUN

    Link to: Romans 13:11

    COMMENTARY

    Paul ends the section where he began in 12:1-2, setting the Christian’s moral obligations in the context of knowing what the time is: It is almost daybreak. This is a familiar image in early Christian writing, again quite possibly going back to Jesus himself; and Paul has developed it elsewhere (1 Thess 5:1-11; see also Matt 24:42-44; 26:45; Mark 13:33-37; Luke 12:35-46; 21:36; Eph 5:8-16; the idea of staying awake to be about one’s Christian tasks is also evident in Eph 6:18). This idea flows consistently from the early Christian belief that with the resurrection of Jesus God’s promised new age had dawned, but that full day was yet to come (see above all 1 Cor 15:20-28). Christians therefore live in the interval between the early signs of dawn and the sunrise itself, and their behavior must be appropriate for the day, not the night. There is such a thing as appropriate and

     

     

                                     <Page 727 Ends><Page 728 Begins>

     

    good nocturnal behavior, but as with 1 Thess 5:7 Paul takes “night” as a synecdoche (one part standing for the whole) for the types of evil behavior that flourish away from the light. There is also a trace here of the metaphor Paul develops more in 1 Thess 5:8 (and that reaches fuller expression in Eph 6:10-17): What you need, between dawn and full day, are the “weapons of light” (13:12). Finally there is the command to “put on” the Lord Jesus Christ, an idea paralleled both in Galatians (3:27) and in Eph 4:24. This paragraph, in short, though perfectly at home at this point in Romans, bringing the opening exhortation of chaps. 12—13 to an appropriate and sharp conclusion, is also a window on several aspects of Pauline ethics. It should not pass unremarked that this was the passage read by Augustine after hearing children’s voices chanting “pick up and read, pick up and read”; it was the final push he needed to make a clean break with his past and devote himself entirely to God.530 

    13:11.  Paul assumes that his readers will know what “time” it is (the word for “time” here is kairov" [kairos], a special moment rather than mere chronological time); as in 12:2, he expects them to be familiar with the idea of the old age, which is passing away, and the new age, which is dawning. (The NIV’s “understanding the present time” is a somewhat ponderous way of drawing attention to the significance of what he says.) He expects them to be up before day breaks fully; this theme, with its echoes of the Easter morning stories, resonates through the early Christian sense of new creation, new life bursting through the wintry crust of the old world. It is, he insists, time to wake up. 

    The reason he gives is that “our salvation” is nearer now than when first we believed. Paul does not say, as many of his interpreters have supposed that he said, that the final end of which he speaks in Romans 8, 1 Corinthians 15, 1 Thessalonians 4—5, and elsewhere, will certainly come within a generation; but he knows that it might well do so, and insists that it is the more urgent that Christians behave already in the manner that will then be appropriate. Though “salvation” can refer to saving events during the present course of history (e.g., Phil 1:19), and Paul can insist in one passage that “the day of salvation” is already present (2 Cor 6:2), here the word has its normal meaning, referring to the final day when God will renew all things in Christ and give all the justified their glorious, risen bodies, and investing that event with its sense of “rescue from disaster” (see Rom 5:9-10; 8:24, 29-30; Phil 3:20-21). The idea of the eschatological moment coming “near,” which Paul repeats in the next verse, carries echoes of Jesus’ original proclamation, as in Mark 1:15 and parallels: God’s kingdom “is near.”531 And now, he says, it is nearer than it was at the time we became believers; this is in one sense obvious, but in another needs saying as a reminder that though to us the passage of time seems to move on without much change we should not forget that the great future moment is steadily coming closer.

    13:12.  By way of explaining what he means by saying it is time to wake up, he declares that the night is nearly over and the day is breaking, and draws the conclusion in a mixed metaphor: it is time to stop nocturnal activities and put on the “weapons” proper for daylight. (The metaphor is more obviously, and gloriously, mixed in 1 Thessalonians 5, where those who are asleep will go into labor pains, because a thief is breaking into the house, while those who are awake should not get drunk, but should put on their armor.) Though “putting on” is the normal term for clothing or protective armor, the verb anticipates v. 14, where it is “the Lord Jesus Christ” who is “put on.” The weapons here are “of light,” contrasting with the “works of darkness”; “of light” seems to mean “appropriate for daylight,” “the weapons that children of day will need.” (The NRSV and the NIV translate o{pla [hopla] as “armor.” The word properly denotes military equipment, not primarily clothing; however, the verb here and in Eph 6:11 is ordinarily used of putting on clothes.)

    13:13-14. Paul has in mind, clearly, what in Galatians he calls “the works of the flesh,” the things that characterize humanity in rebellion against its creator (Gal 5:19). As is often pointed

     

     

                                     <Page 728 Ends><Page 729 Begins>

     

    out, “flesh” here means much more than “physicality”; for “quarreling and jealousy” (NRSV) you need an unquiet spirit as well as a sharp tongue and an envious eye. Nevertheless his main target here is the abuse of the body, one’s own and often that of others as well: wild parties, drinking-bouts, sexual immorality and licentiousness. These are characteristic nighttime behaviors in the literal sense that they normally happen after dark, and in Paul’s metaphorical sense that they belong with the old age rather than with the new day that is dawning in Christ (see 12:2). We should not forget that “quarreling and jealousy” are put on exactly the same level as immorality; there are many churches where the first four sins are unheard of but the last two run riot.

    Instead, Paul commands his readers to “put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh” (NRSV), or, as the NIV rightly interprets, “do not think about how to gratify” the desires that come from the corruptible and rebellious side of human nature. Paul has here returned to the basic commands of 6:12-13 (where, as here in v. 12, he speaks of “weapons,” though there it is the parts of the body that are to become “weapons of righteousness”) and of 8:12-13. And though his particular expressions shift from passage to passage, his underlying terminology is completely consistent. The “body,” which will die but be raised, must already in the present be given to God in service and worship (12:2); the “flesh” will die, and its efforts to drag the Christian down with it must be resisted. There must be no loophole, no secret areas where license is permitted, where the “desires” of the “flesh” are tolerated, let alone encouraged (see 7:4-6).

    The ultimate safeguard against the seduction of the “flesh” in this full sense is Jesus himself–the Lord, the Messiah. In Gal 3:27 it is “the Messiah” who is to be “put on”; in Eph 5:24 and Col 3:10 it is “the new human being”; but the imagery of putting on a new suit of clothes, carrying as it may well do overtones of baptism, is used in several different senses and cannot easily be systematized. (In 1 Cor 15:53-4 and 2 Cor 5:3 it is used in relation to the resurrection body; in Col 3:12 it is used of the key Christian virtues; see also the passage about baptism and behavior in Romans 6.) Frequently when Paul uses more than one name or title for Jesus the one he wishes to emphasize is placed first; here, by saying, “put on the Lord Jesus Christ,” he seems to be drawing attention to the sovereignty of Jesus, not simply over the believer (who is bound to obey the one whose servant he or she is), but perhaps more particularly over the forces of evil that are ranged against the gospel and those who embrace it. The Lord Jesus Christ thus becomes the personification of “the weapons of light” in v. 12: putting him on like a suit of armor is the best protection against the powers of the present darkness (see Eph 6:12). Paul is addressing those who have already “put on Christ” in baptism (Gal 3:27). The assumption must be that he is urging them, as a regular spiritual discipline, to invoke the presence and power of Jesus as Lord of all things to be their defense against all evil, not least the evil toward which they might be lured by their own “flesh.”

    REFLECTIONS

    1. There are three things this passage highlights as basic to Christian behavior. The first is to know what time one is living at. Though as we have seen there are social and cultural reasons why it seems counterintuitive to say so, the Christian is committed to the belief that the world’s new day dawned with Jesus the Messiah, and that ever since his resurrection the world has been caught in the overlap between the old and the new, seen here as the moment just before full dawn when those who know their business are already up and behaving as in the daytime. The mental, moral, emotional, and spiritual effort required to sustain a belief in inaugurated eschatology may at times seem impossible. But the effort must be made. Without it, Christian moral teaching can easily degenerate into apparently baseless, or even pointless, exhortations. Why bother staying awake at midnight?532

     

     

                                     <Page 729 Ends><Page 730 Begins>

     

     

    2.  The second basic point is the rejection of “the works of darkness,” and the making of no provision for “the desires of the flesh.” The balancing point between unbridled hedonism on the one hand and nervous dualism on the other is very delicate, and Christians who react against the excesses of the one position are often in danger of lapsing into the other. It is important to read the present passage with 12:1-2 in mind, recognizing and celebrating the goodness of the body while (as in 8:12-13) rejecting some of the characteristic things that the body gets up to–which are what Paul calls “the works of the flesh.” Equally, it is important, in celebrating the goodness of the created body, and delighting in the truth articulated in the next chapter, that everything made by God is good (14:14; cf. 1 Cor 10:25-27; 1 Tim 4:4), not to be led astray into thinking that therefore all rules concerning eating, drinking, and sexual practice are now irrelevant, shown up as unnecessary and probably dualistic restrictions on God-given liberty. Far from it. There are many things that must simply be ruled out, cut off without mercy; and drunkenness and sexual immorality (which often go together, of course) are among them. “As the flesh will make its own demands, there is no need to meet it halfway.”533 

    3. Third, there is the positive command to “put on the Lord Jesus Christ.” Paul never explains what exactly he thinks will constitute obedience to this attractive-sounding but to us opaque command, or to the others like it. Since it is similar to the “putting on Christ” that occurs in baptism (Gal 3:27), we may suppose that he has in mind the spiritual discipline, through daily prayer and meditation, of invoking Jesus himself as Lord (and therefore sovereign over oneself and over all powers that might attack) and savior (and therefore able to rescue one from harm). One of the best ways of doing this, practiced in many Christian traditions, is to meditate on the Gospel narratives about Jesus, placing oneself in the position of one of the onlookers or participants in the story and allowing the presence of Jesus to be felt and known, and with that presence allowing his own struggles against evil, and his call to take up the cross and follow him, to have their full effect. The reading of a gospel passage at a daily or weekly eucharist, followed by the solemn invoking of the risen Lord and feeding on the symbols of his self-giving love, is known in many Christian traditions as an excellent way of steadily obeying this most positive of ethical commands.

  • Dan Francis
    Dan Francis Member Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭


    Here is another sample (1 TIMOTHY 4:1-16), if you have a section that you would like to see, I will get it posted here ASAP.

    -Dan 

    1 TIMOTHY 4:1-16, THE TWO WAYS

    <Page 810 Ends><Page 811 Begins>COMMENTARY

    Chapter 4 broadly follows a pattern of exhortation with ancient precedents, in Jewish tradition already quite elaborate in Deuteronomy 28:1–30. The speaker sets before his audience two paths, between which they have to choose, or two prospects, one of which will be realized, depending on how they respond to the speaker's challenge. The classic Christian examples are Matt 7:13-14 and the early second-century church manual, Didache 1–6. Here the indicative terms are “later times” and “depart from” (4:1); “follow” (4:6); “train yourself” (4:7-8); “promise of life” (4:8); “strive,” “hope” (4:10); “progress” (4:15); and “you will save” (4:16). The first alternative is characterized by talk of “deceitful spirits” and “demons” (4:1); “hypocrisy of liars” and “seared conscience” (4:2); “godless and silly myths” (4:7); and, by implication, general slackness and lack of discipline (4:7-8, 10, 15). The second alternative, to which the writer wishes to point his hearers, is characterized by “thanksgiving,” “believing and knowing the truth” (4:3-4); “word of God and prayer” (4:5); “words of faith and of the good teaching” (4:6); “godliness” (4:7-8); “hope in God” and “believe” (4:10); “love, faith, purity” (4:12); “reading, encouraging, teaching” (4:13, 16); and “charism” (4:14). The contrast is stated sharply for effect, the former set out in pejorative terms, the latter in bland assertions; but sufficient detail is included to enable the reader to perceive that recognizable life-styles were in view.

    4:1-5, The Wrong Way. The prospect of defection is held out as a certainty. It had been explicitly stated by the Spirit (v. 1). The reference is presumably either to the familiar scenario of immense suffering and persecution to be experienced by the faithful in the last days of the present age, or to a particular prophetic utterance elaborating the prospect in more detail. The prediction had been a feature in Jewish apocalyptic more or 

     

    <Page 811 Ends><Page 812 Begins>

     less since Dan 12:1-2. In Christian tradition, something similar is attributed to Jesus (Mark 13:5-6, 13, 19-22) and to Paul (Acts 20:29-30; 2 Thess 2:3-12), and the same foreboding is expressed in Revelation (e.g., Rev 2:5, 16; 14:9-12). The implication is that the writer understands his present as already “the last days.”

    The key word here, ajfi"sthmi (aphistemi), can be translated as “fall away,” “become apostate,” “desert” (NIV, “abandon”; NRSV, “renounce”), and is regularly used in the LXX of falling away from God (e.g., Deut 32:15; Jer 3:14; 1 Macc 1:15). There was a real choice to be made here, and given the volatility and lack of clear boundaries around the young churches, there would be considerable crossing of these boundaries, outward as well as inward (see Reflections on 1:1-11). The concern here, then, is to firm up the commitment and resolve of such recruits by painting the alternative in apocalyptic colors (cf. references to Daniel 12:1; Mark 13:1; 2 Thessalonians 2:1; and Revelation above).

    The immediate contrast is between “the faith” and “deceitful spirits and teachings of demons.” Presumably prophecies within or without the Christian assemblies are in view (cf. 2 Thess 2:2; 2 Pet 2:1; 1 John 4:1-3), promoting views that the writer saw as contrary to “the faith.” The problem of false prophecy is an old one within the Judeo-Christian tradition (see, e.g., 1 Kings 22:1; Jeremiah 28:1; 1 Thess 5:19-22; Didache 11; Justin Dialogue with Trypho 82), though the earlier Paul was less disposed to attribute to false spirits and demons those prophecies that were to be rejected (see 1 Cor 10:20-21; 12:10). An example of such teaching supported by prophecy will be provided in 4:3, but it should be noted that the charismatic character of the earlier Pauline churches (1 Cor 14:26-32; 1 Thess 5:19-22) still persisted. The firmer structures of organization and formulation of “the faith” had presumably been found necessary, in part at least against the dangers of charismatic excess and false prophecy.

    Verse 2 is a good example of polemical denigration. Those who depart from “the faith” for such reasons have simply succumbed to “the hypocritical preaching of liars whose own consciences have been seared” (lit., branded with a red-hot iron and thus desensitized).66 The imagery evoked is vivid, but we should recall that it is coined by one who disagreed violently with the opinions expressed.

    An example of such false teaching backed by prophetic utterance is the advocacy of an ascetic life-style: marriage forbidden and abstinence from certain foods advocated (v. 3). Similar issues had troubled the church in Corinth—regarding marriage (1 Cor 7:1)67 and over the eating of meat offered to idols (1 Corinthians 8:1)—though in the latter case the principal problem was with those who thought it perfectly acceptable to eat such food (see Col 2:20-23). The advice here follows that in 1 Corinthians 7:1 and the theological logic of 1 Cor 10:25-26: Whatever has been created by God is good (Genesis 1:1).68 The faithful, by definition, should know this truth, their consciences being instructed in the faith. The practical test is the same as in the nearest equivalent passage, Rom 14:6: Can the one who eats, acting in a way that seems overindulgent to others in the church, give thanks to God in doing so (v. 3)? The answer here is yes; the acceptability of a controversial life-style to God is more determinative than its acceptability to fellow church members.

    The point is repeated in strong terms to reinforce it: “Everything created by God is fine and nothing need be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for then it is consecrated through the word of God and prayer” (vv. 4-5). That the rationale is essentially theological (“faith,” “truth,” “made by God,” “word of God,” “prayer”), and not simply freedom of the individual or liberty of opinion, should be noted.

    4:6-10, The Right Way. The alternative is to be clearly taught by Timothy (v. 6). This is a primary responsibility of the “fine minister of Christ Jesus”; the term used is again dia"konov (diakonos, “minister,” “one who serves”), underlining its still functional and not yet exclusively formal sense (as in 3:8-13; cf. 1:12; 2 Tim 4:5,

     

    <Page 812 Ends><Page 813 Begins>

     11; this was its more typical earlier use; cf. Rom 15:8; 1 Cor 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6; 6:4; 11:15, 23; Gal 2:17; 1 Thess 3:2). Here the idea of a way of discipleship comes more clearly to the fore, mingled with the earlier family imagery: Timothy has been “nourished, brought up”—that is, within “the household of God” (3:15)—and has “followed faithfully” (see Commentary on 2 Tim 3:10) “the words of the faith and the good teaching.” The doubling up of two of the letters' most consistent terms to denote the body of teaching that had already been formulated as “Christian” (see footnote 9) makes clear the character and direction of the second alternative, the right way, being advocated. Again the impression is clearly given that within the relative amorphousness of the early Christian communities it soon became necessary to agree on and formulate more carefully defined statements of faith and more elaborate codes of acceptable conduct, presumably in order to give a sharper sense of Christian identity and a clearer boundary line over against wider society. In the Pastorals we see this process happening before our eyes.

    In sharp contrast, the wrong-way alternative can be dismissed as “profane” (the same word appeared in the vice list in 1:9) and “old wives' tales [myths]” (v. 7), the latter phrase having the same disparaging overtone as today (see Commentary on 1:4). To avoid these requires strict self-discipline, which the writer clearly sees to be distinct from the asceticism of v. 3, in content, character, and goal.69 The image now switches to the athlete's training (v. 8), an image much loved by Paul (1 Cor 9:24-25; Phil 3:13-14). If that is of some profit (as would be generally agreed), then training for “godliness” (the regular term of approbation in the Pastorals; see the Commentary on 2:2) is of profit for everything. The promise is not simply of the victor's wreath in the games, but of life both now and in the age to come (cf. 1:16; 6:12, 19; 2 Tim 1:1, 10; Titus 1:2; 3:7). The writer is so confident of the truth of his conviction that he designates it also a “faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance” (v. 9). Some think “the faithful saying” refers to what follows, but v. 8b has the more formulaic character (see the Commentary on 1:15).

    With the age-old religious instinct to set this present life and its circumstances into a long-term context, the writer reaffirms the goal of godliness: a hope that looks for a salvation beyond the limits of current experience (v. 10). The thought is still of the discipline required: “for this cause we work hard and exert ourselves” (ajgwnizo"meqa, agonizometha as in the agon, “athletic contest”).70 “Hope,” as almost always in the NT, is the confident Hebrew assurance, rather than the tentative Greek aspiration (cf. Rom 5:2-5; 8:24; Gal 5:5; Col 1:5), the Hebrew character of the thought reinforced by a further reference to “the living God” (see Commentary on 3:15) as the guarantor of the hope.

    The hope arises out of the conviction that God is “Savior” (v. 10). Elsewhere in the Pastorals (see Commentary on 1:1), the thought is always of “our Savior,” whether in reference to God or to Christ Jesus. But here the note of universalism, first loudly struck in 2:4-6 (see also Titus 2:11), is sounded again: “Savior of everyone.” The additional phrase, “especially believers,” sounds odd and has occasioned much discussion: Does it qualify the note of universalism? Presumably it is intended primarily to underline the confidence of the writer's hope: If God is Savior of everyone, then those of faith in God can be all the more confident that they will share in God's salvation.

    4:11-16, Timothy as an Example. The role envisaged for Timothy becomes clearer: He receives instruction from Paul and passes it on with authority to instruct and to teach (v. 11). How someone should be described who commands overseers and deacons is not made clear. The writer is content to leave the impression, here and elsewhere, that Timothy is Paul's personal representative and emissary. So the authority with which Timothy teaches is that of Paul himself, not that of a distinct rank or office.

    The reference to Timothy's youth (v. 12) is somewhat surprising. At first encounter he is described in terms suggesting a fair degree of maturity (a disciple well spoken of, Acts 16:1-2). Since then he had functioned as Paul's chief aide for the rest of Paul's ministry (see Commentary on 1:2). That is, if the Pastorals do come from a

     

    <Page 813 Ends><Page 814 Begins>

     late phase of Paul's ministry, then Timothy would have been Paul's chief coworker for about fifteen years. To call someone already into his thirties a “youth” would be unusual, and after such a period of training and responsibility, was anyone who respected Paul likely to question Timothy's authority? If, alternatively, the letter was written later, as seems more likely, and if Timothy himself was still in view, then he would probably have been in his fifties at least. It looks, then, as though the writer is working with an image of Timothy drawn from the earlier letters of Paul. Timothy, in other words, may here function as a representative model of the youthful leader, like the younger member of Paul's mission team of earlier years, someone whose charism or natural ability brought him to the forefront despite his youth. In an era that venerated the wisdom of age, such a one might well be “despised” (1 Cor 16:11, a different word, written at least ten years earlier). And though Paul never uses the word in reference to himself (cf. Rom 2:4; 1 Cor 11:22), there certainly were those operating within his churches who had scorned him in the past (e.g., 2 Cor 10:10).

    The best way of answering such attacks would be for Timothy to show himself as a model worthy to be copied (v. 12). On several occasions Paul had put himself forward as an example (1 Cor 4:16; 11:1; Phil 3:17); it is interesting to note that in the first of these, Timothy is sent to remind the Corinthians of Paul's example (1 Cor 4:17). So now it is Timothy who is to provide exemplary leadership “in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith, in purity,” the last probably with the sexual sense of “chastity” (cf. 5:2). Little is more destructive of community than authority of status not matched by quality of life.

    With the instruction of v. 13, whether an epistolary characterization or a real visit in prospect, the function of the letter as the voice of the absent Paul is underlined. Paul's letters were often written to signal an imminent visit or a visit delayed (see Commentary on 3:14-16). “Until I come” can serve as a piece of advice that endures. “Reading” probably means public, rather than private, reading. This would certainly refer to the Scriptures,71 but also to writings worthy to be read in church and probably already also readings of Christian documents—early collections of Jesus tradition and Paul's own letters (cf. Col 4:16; 2 Pet 3:15-16). It was in this way that their authority grew and spread. Worth noting is the implied content of a Christian assembly and its variety: the drawing upon ancient scriptural writings and newer writings of recognized worth; encouragement as well as teaching, presumably on the basis of the reading (see Luke 4:17-21; Acts 13:15).

    Timothy's authority is underlined by reference back to what is considered a particular commissioning event (v. 14). It evidently had three elements: the giving of his “charism,” that is, presumably, by the Spirit (1 Cor 12:4-7, 11); a “prophecy” (prophetic utterance; cf. 1:18); and “the laying on of hands by the presbytery.” The event is referred to again in 2 Tim 1:6, and the nearest parallel is the commissioning of Barnabas and Saul by the leaders of the Antioch church at the behest of the Spirit, presumably through prophetic utterance (Acts 13:2-3; cf. Acts 14:23). The whole event, however, seems to be envisaged in more formal terms. The “charism” seems now to be conceived of as a permanent gift that Timothy can “neglect” (v. 14) or can “rekindle” (2 Tim 1:6), whereas Paul's earlier thought was more in terms of charism as the enactment of grace, coming to visible manifestation in a particular utterance or act (Rom 12:4-8; 1 Cor 12:4-11). The laying on of hands as an act of the presbytery (council of elders) sounds like a more formally conceived and structured act, though in 2 Tim 1:6 Paul refers only to his own action, and here the preposition “with” implies attendant circumstances rather than means (“through,” as in 2 Tim 1:6; but see Commentary on 2 Tim 2:2). In v. 14, we appear to be on the way to a concept of “ordination” and of charism as “grace of office.”

    That commission (“these things”) once given has to be thought about, carefully cultivated, and practiced (the first verb, meleta"w [meletao], has this range of meaning); “these things” (v. 15) presumably embraces all that had been referred to in vv. 11-14. The charism that is not exercised will wither. “Be in them”; we might say, “Immerse yourself in them.” The personal objective is “progress” in “these things”; the term “progress” (prokoph prokope) was popular in Stoic philosophy, and Paul had used it in Phil 1:25 (cf. 

     

    <Page 814 Ends><Page 815 Begins>

     Phil 1:12). The advice complements that of 1 Tim 4:12.

    The most important yardstick is “the teaching” (v. 16): “Stick with that.” It is that which will ensure salvation both for Timothy and for those whom he instructs in the teaching. Here again we see a deep concern to mark out and delimit the terms of the gospel, the faith, and to forge an exclusive link between that teaching and salvation. Down that track lies the old slogan, “Outside the church no salvation,” with both its strengths and its weaknesses. The strength is that the teaching does encapsulate what Christians have found from the start to contain the words of life. The weakness is that salvation can be thought to be conditional on adherence to a particular set of words, first framed to meet certain historical challenges and interpreted in a narrow and insensitive way.

    REFLECTIONS

    The advantage of the “two ways” imagery is twofold. In the first place, it emphasizes that there is a choice to be made and that this choice will entail what may be lasting consequences. The vision of endless freedom and an infinite pluralism of “good” possibilities cloaks an uncomfortable fact, summed up in the old aphorism: We are free to choose, but we are not free to choose the consequences of our choice. Freedom to choose a particular career or to experiment with drugs or to throw off sexual restraint sets in motion a sequence of consequences from which it is impossible to escape and which will be character shaping as well as life-style constraining. And these are simply illustrations of the potentially far more momentous choice in regard to religion and faith, if indeed it is the case that a fundamental reality of human beings is that they are also spiritual beings made by God and for relationship with God.

    This does not mean that such a momentous choice once made need never be made again. The reality is that there will always be some people, initially drawn to choose the best way, who will “fall away” by paying too much attention to what the writer calls “deceitful spirits” (the problem of false prophecy) and “hypocritical preaching of liars” (teaching proferred for factional or personal motives). Here as in other spheres, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. In this often disturbing reality of enticing alternatives and clashing opinions, it is often vital to have a clear grasp of the basic principles and values on which the religion, the godly life, is built. In the case of the Pastorals, this means “the words of the faith and of the sound teaching.” Few can live out of a faith outline as brief as “God is one; Jesus is Lord” (cf. Rom 10:9; 1 Cor 8:6). Most need something more. It is the task of leadership to indicate and define what that more should be, drawing not least from the reading of Scripture and previous tradition (4:13).

    The danger on the other side is that such a statement of “the faith and the teaching” can become overdefined and too prescriptive. Here it is important to note the way the writer takes a firm stand on a principle of liberty in regard to one of the most contentious issues for the early churches: whether certain foods were prohibited to believers. In earlier days it had been a make-or-break issue; the very definition and status of “Jew” and “Christian” hung on it (1 Macc 2:62-63; Rom 14:3-4). In the light of such tradition, a cautious respondent would have been tempted to counsel, “If it's offensive to others, don't.” But in this instance the writer follows the line of Paul's advice: “If you can give thanks to God in what you do and for what you do, then it is a consecrated act acceptable to God” (see 4:4-5; cf. Rom 14:6). In other words, the make-or-break issues for one need not be so for others or for the church as a whole. Discerning the difference is what marks out mature leadership.

    In the second place, the image of a “way” is a reminder that the Christian life is not to be conceived as something static. This is often the hidden implication of alternative metaphors 

     

    <Page 815 Ends><Page 816 Begins>

     like “position” and “viewpoint.” But the first formal title for Christianity seems to have been “the way” (Acts 9:2; 18:25-26; 19:9, 23; 22:4; 24:14, 22). And Paul's favorite image for Christian conduct is “walk,” itself reflecting the traditional Jewish image ^lh (hAlAk, “walk”), from which the term halakhah (“rules for conduct”) is derived. Here the point is evoked particularly by talk of “following” (v. 6) and “progress” (v. 15). The point is that the Christian life involves movement, growth (nurture, v. 6), development. Too often in Christian mission so much attention is given to conversion that the equally important development toward maturity is neglected.

    The writer makes clear that such growth and development depend on training and the discipline involved (vv. 7-8); they involve hard work and sweat-inducing exertion (v. 10); they require cultivation of the gift given and committed personal involvement (v. 15). Here again a choice once made has to be repeatedly reaffirmed and lived out.

    The imagery also provides another angle on “the faith” and “the teaching.” The Pastorals can be too easily disparaged for their reliance upon a faith and teaching already formulated and prescribed. But it would be more fair to see this emphasis as a stage on the way to greater maturity (of individual and church). That is to say, “the faith/teaching” actually refers to the process of giving Christian identity greater clarity of definition. It is not an endpoint (“the faith” finally defined), but “faith seeking understanding.”

    Such progress in faith need not mean a steadily lengthening list of “what we believe and do” (even the more prescriptive tendency of rabbinic Judaism allowed for plenty of dissenting opinions). What it should mean is a greater appreciation of how faith responds to and impacts upon an increasing range of alternative ideologies and practical issues, a process that in turn should provide guidelines (not straitjackets) for future responses and objectives. To “do theology” is not simply to learn about past doctrines and classic statements of faith. It means still more to think through the reality of a living faith and to bring that reality (not just formulae and statements about faith) into dialogue with alternative views of reality, resulting in fresh formulations of the faith. A faith that does not grow and develop condemns itself to wither and die. Tertium non datur: There is no third alternative!

  • Rev Chris
    Rev Chris Member Posts: 570 ✭✭

    I appreciate your continued insistence to push the NIB toward production!  I hope it goes over the top soon - it gets tiring opening up my printed copies each time. [;)]

    Pastor, seminary trustee, and app developer.  Check out my latest app for churches: The Church App

  • Dan Francis
    Dan Francis Member Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭

    Hi Chris, can you think of a particularly favourite passage from the NIB that i could post that might help people see what a good resource this is?

    -Dan

  • Mike Childs
    Mike Childs Member Posts: 3,135 ✭✭✭

    Dan,

    I also commend you for lifting up this resource to everyone.  I think Abingdon owes you a commission!

    I also believe that the publication of NIB in Logos format will expand the Logos market in Methodist and Wesleyan circles.  As far as I know, Logos will be the exclusive Bible software format for the crown jewels of Abingdon, (namely the New Interpreters Bible Commentary and NIB Dictionary.)  This needs to be made well known among Methodist and Wesleyan pastors.

    Also, I wish my fellow Methodist pastors knew that Logos publishes many other resources which should be of great interest to Methodists and Wesleyans.  For example, the new edition of Wesley's Works, which contains the full journal not found in the Jackson edition that everyone else publishes.  Logos has a number of works by noted Wesleyan scholar Thomas Oden.  The same is true of Dr. Ben Witherington or Dr. John Oswalt.  I intend to do all I can to influence my colleagues to consider what this wonderful tool can mean to them.

    I am certainly not implying that the interest in these resources are limited to Wesleyan circles.  Absolutely not, the excellent scholarship in them is far broader than that.   I just think that Methodist and Wesleyan pastors are a market for Logos that has great unrealized potential.  I am very glad that Abingdon is beginning to publish in Logos.  I hope Abingdon / Cokesbury will strengthen their relationship with Logos.   I think both Logos and Abingdon / Cokesbury would be winners. 


    "In all cases, the Church is to be judged by the Scripture, not the Scripture by the Church," John Wesley

  • Dan Francis
    Dan Francis Member Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭

    Not quite, Olivetree currently has the dictionary and the study Bible, and while they use to be mobile only they now have computer based software (not sure what windows is like but the mac one is pretty basic, but quite fast. So Abingdon is not looking at Logos exclusively, what they should have done is commissioned Logos to do it, this is probably the best commentary out there and they would do well to have it in the top Bible study program. It is a win win for both of them. And while I would love Abigndon to give something for my efforts, but i have no delusions that I will get anything for my efforts but hopefully the NIB in Logos format.  Although I do know if it becomes available in Olivetree for a decent price before it is under contract in Logos I will have to consider possibly getting it there. But I do know my preference is having the version in Logos fully integrated with my Logos Library.

    -dan

    As far as I know, Logos will be the exclusive Bible software format for the crown jewels of Abingdon, (namely the New Interpreters Bible Commentary and NIB Dictionary.)  This needs to be made well known among Methodist and Wesleyan pastors.

  • Dan Francis
    Dan Francis Member Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭


    EZEKIEL 34:1-31, THE LORD IS YOUR SHEPHERD; YOU SHALL NOT WANT

    OVERVIEW

    With Ezekiel 34, the reader arrives at the onset of what commentator Daniel Block calls “the gospel according to Ezekiel (34:1–48:35).”1129 To be sure, optimistic prophecies have appeared in some preceding chapters (e.g., 11:14-21; 17:22-24; 28:25-26); and negative comments will surface not only in chap. 34, but also in some subsequent oracles. The present prophecy of salvation, however, marks a genuine turning point in the prophet’s ministry. Henceforth, he will speak frequently of Yahweh’s future rescue of Israel, of its restoration to the homeland, and of conditions that will pertain there.

    Ezekiel 34 draws upon (and draws together) a rich array of Israel’s religious imagery, traditions, and motifs: the metaphors, common in the ancient Near Eastern world, that a king (whether divine or human) is a shepherd, and his subjects are the flock; Day of the Lord allusions; the (new) exodus; God’s everlasting covenant with David and his dynasty; blessings associated with fidelity to the covenant forged at Sinai; and the establishment of a future “covenant of peace.”

    A complex compositional history likely underlies Ezekiel 34. Few critics would deny the prophet vv. 1-16 (sans vv. 7-8), but the “authenticity” of vv. 17-31 has been the subject of vigorous debate.1130 Nevertheless the text invites readers to construe it as a single unit, because its subunits (vv. 2-10; 11-16; 17-31) share shepherd/flock imagery. Such imagery is less pronounced in vv. 25-30 (it returns explicitly in v. 31). But because those verses are read in the light of preceding ones and speak of Israel’s future security in ways largely apropos to animals as well as to human beings, they fit their context well.

    Following the familiar word event formula (v. 1), the chapter commences with a prophecy of punishment addressed to the past shepherds of Israel (vv. 2-10). This may seem a strange way to launch an oracle of salvation, but the reader soon discovers that the shepherds’ loss will be the flock’s gain. Ezekiel casts his metaphorical description of the rulers’ sins of commission and omission against Yahweh’s people in the form of a woe oracle (vv. 2-6; note the presence of ywh [hôy, “woe”] in v. 2 NIV). The announcement of their punishment appears in v. 10: God will retake control of the flock, bringing an end to the shepherds’ exploitive and irresponsible tending.

    The second subunit (vv. 11-16) proclaims that Yahweh, the good shepherd, will seek out the sheep scattered among the nations and return them to their homeland, there to graze in fine pasturage upon the mountains of Israel and to drink from the land’s watercourses. The Lord’s care for the flock is the antithesis of the former shepherds’ miscare (compare vv. 4 and 16).

    Verse 16b functions as a pivot between previous and following verses. Yahweh will destroy the fat and strong members of the flock, whose offenses are detailed in vv. 17-21, and tend the sheep with “justice.” Not only do the rams and he-goats (the flock’s most powerful members) feed on the best pasturage and drink the clearest water, but also they oppress the rest of the flock by trampling the remaining pasturage beneath their feet and muddying the water with their hooves. Therefore, Yahweh will judge between the “fat sheep” and their victims, the “lean sheep” who have been scattered far and wide. The text does not dwell upon the form Yahweh’s judgment or arbitration will take. Rather, v. 22 focuses upon the positive—God’s rescue of the flock, which will “no longer be ravaged.”

     

     

     

    <Page 1461 ends>><Page 1462 begins>>

    An initial conjunctive (w waw, “and”) links vv. 23-25 to preceding verses. Yahweh intends to raise up over the flock one shepherd, “my servant David.” Here, Ezekiel speaks not of the resurrection of Israel’s second king, but of the reestablishment of the Davidic dynasty. Despite his earlier, brutal denunciations of Judah’s last rulers (see, e.g., chaps. 17 and 19), he anticipates the restoration of Israel’s only legitimate royal line.

    Promising the establishment of an unconditional “covenant of peace,” Ezekiel describes a future free of dangers (wild animals, oppressive and insulting nations, famine) and filled with blessings (security, seasonal rains, lush vegetation). The people will know that Yahweh is with them, and that they are God’s own. The chapter concludes with the reassuring words, “You are my sheep, the sheep of my pasture and I am your God, says the Lord God.”

    Ezekiel 34:1-10, Woe to the Shepherds of Israel

    Link to: Ezekiel 34:1

     

     

     

     

    <Page 1462 ends>><Page 1463 begins>>

    COMMENTARY

    Yahweh commands Ezekiel to prophesy against the shepherds of Israel. Who are these shepherds? Critics agree that the prophet employs a metaphor common throughout the ancient Near East, i.e., a king is a shepherd.1131 The Sumerian King List, for example, says of Etana, a post-flood ruler of Kish, “Etana, a shepherd, he who ascended to heaven (and) who consolidated all countries, became king and ruled 1,560 years.”1132 In the prologue to his law code, Hammurabi, a ruler of the Old Babylonian Dynasty, identifies himself as “Hammurabi, the shepherd, called by Enlil am I.”1133 Block cites two ancient Near Eastern similes employing shepherd (= king) and flock (= subjects) imagery. The first, a Babylonian proverb, asserts that “a people without a king (is like) sheep without a shepherd.” The second, from Egypt, expresses the same idea: without a king, the people are “like a flock gone astray without a shepherd.”1134 These proverbs stir thoughts of the prophet Micaiah son of Imlah’s prediction concerning the death of northern Israel’s King Ahab: “I saw all Israel scattered on the mountains, like sheep that have no shepherd” (1 Kgs 22:17).

    It is possible that Ezekiel, like Jeremiah (see, e.g., Jer 2:8; 23:1-4), intends that “shepherds” be understood to refer more broadly to leaders in Jerusalem, and not just to the nation’s kings per se. Block challenges that option, observing that in vv. 23-24, the problem of the former, abusive shepherds is resolved by Yahweh’s future appointment of a single good shepherd, David, through whose earthly rule God will exercise divine rule of the flock.1135 His point is strong, though not decisive. In preceding judgment oracles, Ezekiel has singled out Judah’s kings for rebuke (see, e.g., Ezekiel 17, with which the present passage shares striking similarities, and Ezekiel 19). But he has also condemned Israel’s elders for idolatry (8:9-13) and its princes for idolatry, gross acts of social injustice (e.g., murder, oppression), the desecration of sabbaths, and sexual misconduct (Ezekiel 22). On balance, I conclude that in 34:1-10, the prophet focuses on Judah’s last kings. But competent ancient (as well as modern) readers could construe “shepherds” more broadly.

    The indictment, in the form of a woe oracle, immediately sets out a situation gone awry. Israel’s shepherds tended (h[r rA(â) themselves, when their responsibility was to tend the sheep!1136 They ate the fat, i.e., the choicest part of an animal (a sin of commission);1137 they clothed themselves with wool (a second sin of commission); and they slaughtered the fat sheep (a third sin of commission), but (the charge is repeated) they did not tend the sheep (a sin of omission).1138 They made no attempt to strengthen the weak animals, heal the infirmed, bind up the injured, return those who had strayed from the flock, or seek out the lost animals (all sins of omission), but ruled over them with force and harshness (a sin of commission). “With force,” Greenberg reminds us, describes the brutal oppression the Israelites endured under King Jabin of Canaan (Judg 4:3), while “harshness” characterizes the Egyptians’ savage treatment of the enslaved Hebrews (Exod 1:13-14).1139 Israel’s shepherds have treated their own flock as would foreign tyrants and taskmasters! As a consequence, the sheep have been scattered and have fallen prey to wild animals (at the literal level, marauding nations). Lacking a leader, the sheep—Yahweh calls them “my sheep,” asserting that God is their true owner—have wandered

     

     

     

    <Page 1463 ends>><Page 1464 begins>>

     

     throughout the mountains and high places of Israel, and finally been dispersed “over all the face of the earth” with no one to search (vrd dAras) for or seek them.

    The reader is surely struck by Ezekiel’s metaphorical account of how his fellow Judeans entered exile. Though he has excoriated the last rulers of the davidic dynasty in previous oracles and depicted Judean society’s most helpless members as victims of their leaders (e.g., 22:6-12), for the most part Ezekiel has condemned the entire “house of Israel”—both those Judeans remaining in the homeland and those deported to Babylon. Here, by contrast, all of God’s scattered people appear as helpless victims of their rulers’ neglect and abuse.

      Verse 7, with its initial “therefore” (˜@kl lAken) followed by a direct address to the shepherds and the call to attention formula (“hear the word of Yahweh”), leads readers next to expect the proclamation of punishment. Instead v. 8, with its initial oath (“As I live”) and prophetic utterance (“says the Lord God”) formulas, summarizes the situation in an incomplete sentence: Because God’s flock has no shepherd and has become spoil and prey for all the ravaging beasts, and because God’s shepherds have not sought out Yahweh’s flock, tending rather to themselves. . . . Verse 9, then, repeats v. 7; and v. 10 sets out the punishment proper, introduced by the messenger formula, “Thus says the Lord God.” Speaking now of the shepherds in the third person, Yahweh utters the challenge to a duel formula (“I am against the shepherds”; the formula “I am against X,” formulated either in the second person [direct address] or in the third person, has appeared in 21:3; 26:3; 28:22; 29:30; 30:22). God will demand (vrd dAras; the same root appeared in v. 6 with the meaning “to search”) “my flock” from their hand and bring an end to their irresponsible tending; and they will no longer indulge themselves at the sheep’s expense. The Lord will rescue “my flock” from their mouths, and the sheep will no longer be food for them. Readers recall that in the story of David and Goliath, the young shepherd, defending his ability to battle the giant, said to Saul: “Your servant used to keep sheep for his father; and whenever a lion or a bear came and took a lamb from the flock, I went after it and struck it down, rescuing the lamb from its mouth” (1 Sam 17:34-35; emphasis mine). When Yahweh speaks of rescuing God’s flock from the mouths of the shepherds, the latter are comparable to rapacious beasts.

    Some critics have argued that the verses examined thus far were composed during the pre-exilic period, when Judah still was ruled by Davidic kings.1140 From the perspective of the sequential reader, however, Ezekiel proclaims these verses after the news of the nation’s collapse has reached the exiles. Hence, his indictment of Judah’s kings must serve some function other than proclaiming punishment to a still-enthroned royal line. That function becomes clear as the reader progresses through the following subsection, vv. 11-16.

    REFLECTIONS

    In the world of ancient Israel, sheep and other livestock were valuable possessions—sources of nourishment (meat and milk) and of wool for clothing, tents, and trade. A shepherd’s life was difficult and often dangerous, for he was responsible both for providing the defenseless flock with adequate food and water and for protecting it from predators—both human (see, e.g., Ezek 25:4) and animal (1 Sam 17:34-35).

    The peoples of the ancient Near East spoke of kings as shepherds and of their subjects as sheep, thereby emphasizing the responsibility of the former diligently to care for and protect the latter. In ancient Israel, kings were expected to “tend” their subjects; and God held them accountable for their treatment of the flock.

    The shepherd/flock metaphor is ancient but enduring. Its significance for Christian ministry is reflected in our use of “pastor” to refer to ordained ministers. Ministers serve as shepherds obedient to God. They are not self-appointed, nor are they engaged primarily by the flock. Instead, they are called by God to divine service.

     

     

     

    <Page 1464 ends>><Page 1465 begins>>

    Pastoring is not, however, the sole responsibility of ordained ministers. To the contrary, authentic leadership requires “pastoral” care. Everyone who, in one way or another, in one arena or another, exercises authority and influence would do well to consider how the shepherd metaphor might impact his or her mindset and actions. Pastoring begins with the psalmist’s full awareness that “the earth is the Lord’s and all that is in it,/ the world, and those who live in it” (Ps 24:1). As leaders and caretakers, we are not to use persons, things, and situations to personal advantage. Neither exploitation nor neglect is acceptable. Rather, we are to act as God’s stewards, protecting and providing for those who are entrusted to our care, but belong to God. Ezekiel 34 has much to say to leaders of every ilk, be they politicians, health care providers, supervisors, teachers, pastors, or parents.

    Ezekiel 34:11-16, Yahweh, Israel’s Good Shepherd

    Link to: Ezekiel 34:11

    COMMENTARY

    In this subsection Ezekiel turns from Judah’s last kings, the exploitative and irresponsible bad shepherds of the past, to Yahweh as the flock’s exemplary future shepherd. As the reader makes his way through vv. 11-16, he recognizes that the preceding subsection functioned as a foil for this one. Yahweh’s tending of the flock is the antithesis of the kings’ former, irresponsible shepherding.

    As noted in the Overview, the “a god is a shepherd” metaphor was well-established in the ancient Near East. The Babylonian deity Marduk, for example, is exalted by other deities who say, “May he shepherd all the gods like a flock.”1141 Egyptian hymns speak of the gods as herdsmen,

     

     

     

    <Page 1465 ends>><Page 1466 begins>>

     

     and so on. Within the Hebrew Bible, this metaphor appears most famously in Psalm 23 (“The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want”) but also in other texts (e.g., Ps 80:1a: “Give ear, O Shepherd of Israel, you who lead Joseph like a flock!” see also Mic 4:6; 7:14; Jer 23:3: “Then I myself will gather the remnant of my flock out of all the lands where I have driven them, and I will bring them back to their fold, and they shall be fruitful and multiply”; and Isa 40:11: “He will feed his flock like a shepherd; he will gather the lambs in his arms, and carry them in his bosom, and gently lead the mother sheep”).

    Following the messenger formula, Yahweh speaks with emphatic determination: “I myself” (v. 11b). God will not withdraw from the sheep, but will actively search them out (vrd dAras) and examine (rqb bAqar) them. The piel verb from the root bAqar can mean “to seek” but also “to inquire” in the sense of inspecting something. In Lev 13:36, it describes a priest’s inspection of a person’s skin for signs of disease (yellow hair); in Lev 27:33, it refers to the examination of an animal in order to determine its fitness for sacrifice. Verse 21 is difficult, but the sense seems to be that just as a shepherd examines bAqar his scattered sheep when at last he has found them, so Yahweh will examine “my sheep” after rescuing them from all of the places to which they were scattered “on a day of cloud and deep gloom.”1142 The latter phrase stirs thoughts of the theophany at Mt. Sinai (see, e.g., Deut. 4:11; Ps 97:2) and, especially, of the “Day of Yahweh” motif (see Joel 2:2; Zeph 1:15, and the commentary to Ezekiel 7). In this context, it refers to the recent destruction of Jerusalem, which Ezekiel understands to be Yahweh’s just punishment for Israel’s long-lived history of sin.

    In describing God’s future salvific activity, Ezekiel draws from vocabulary rooted in Israel’s exodus (from Egypt) and entrance (into Canaan) traditions. Yahweh will bring them out from the peoples and gather them from the countries, and bring them into their own land.1143 These three verbs appeared, in the same sequence, in Ezek 20:34-35—also an account of a new exodus which, in 20:37, uses shepherd imagery (“I will make you pass under the staff”). Under the (mis)care of the bad shepherds, the flock was scattered and wandered “over all the mountains and on every high hill” (v. 6). Under the direct care of shepherd Yahweh, however, the Israelites will undertake a new exodus, even greater than the first, because God will bring them out from the lands of multiple peoples, gathering them from all the nations. More than the Judean exiles in Babylonia are in view here. Yahweh intends to retrieve all members of flock Israel including, one supposes, the descendants of those Northern Israelites scattered abroad in the wake of Ephraim’s defeat by the Assyrians in 721 BCE and the Judeans who fled to Egypt in the aftermath of Jerusalem’s fall. The mountains of Israel are thrice mentioned (in vv. 13-14) as the ideal setting for the flock, offering excellent pasturage and ample water. Verse 15, with its initial, emphatic pronoun (“I will be the shepherd of my sheep”) speaks of rest and security for the flock and stirs thoughts of Ps 23:2 (“He makes me lie down in green pastures”).

    In v. 4, the irresponsible shepherds were accused of five sins of omission. In Hebrew, one expects a verb to precede its direct object. But in v. 4 normal word order was reversed for emphasis:

      A   the weak you have not strengthened,

      B   the sick you have not healed,

      C   the injured you have not bound up,

      D   the strayed you have not brought back,

      E   the lost you have not sought

    Verse 16 recasts these five negative statements about the shepherds’ neglect into positive statements concerning Yahweh’s shepherding of the flock. Again, direct objects precede verbs for emphasis. Moreover, the order of statements in v. 4 is reversed; and the A and B statements of that verse are, in v. 16, conflated and condensed:

      E´   the lost I will seek,

      D´   the strayed I will bring back,

      C´   the injured I will bind up

      B´   the sick

      A´   I will strengthen.

     

     

     

    <Page 1466 ends>><Page 1467 begins>>

    In MT, the initial statement of v. 16b reads, “but the fat and the strong I will destroy” (dymva )asmîd). In two Hebrew manuscripts, however, the verb is rymva ()asmîr), “I will watch over.” The latter reading is presupposed by LXX; MT can be explained as a copyist’s error, since d (d) and r (r) were easily confused. If one emends the Masoretic text, then the first part of v. 16b continues the series of short, positive descriptions about Yahweh’s good shepherding begun in v. 16a: God’s tending of the flock is not restricted to its lost and disabled members, but extends to robust and healthy animals (the opposite of “the weak” [A] in v. 4) as well. The second half of v. 16b, then, proclaims that God will tend the flock “with justice,” the antithesis of the bad shepherds’ ruling with “force and harshness.” However, MT can be retained if one reads all of v. 16b as a presage of the subunit to follow, in which Yahweh promises to judge or arbitrate between strong and oppressive members of the flock and their weaker victims. The sequential reader of v. 16 does not yet know the contents of vv. 17-22, so the MT’s “I will destroy” is jarring. But the tension it creates is immediately resolved in the following verses. So read, v. 16b functions as a transition between preceding verses and ensuing ones.

    REFLECTIONS

    As noted in the Commentary, Yahweh is rather frequently depicted in Hebrew Scripture as the good shepherd who provides for the flock’s every need. Although many people reading this reflection will have had little or no direct contact with shepherds and sheep, the metaphor remains powerful. Witness the popularity of Psalm 23, which affirms that even as God’s sheep walk “through the valley of the shadow of death” (NIV), they need not fear, for God is with them as protector and guide.

    For many Christians, Jesus assumes the role of the good shepherd. Indeed, as O’Day observes, “the image of Jesus as the good shepherd has a perennial hold on Christian imagination and piety. Some of the most popular pictures of Jesus are those that depict him as a shepherd, leading a flock of sheep.”1144 According to John 10:11, Jesus appropriates the “good shepherd” metaphor because he, like such a shepherd, “lays down his life for the sheep.”

    In Israel’s ancient Near Eastern world, kings were expected to “tend” their subjects justly, especially those who were most vulnerable to abuse: widows, orphans, the poor, infirmed, and displaced. Israel’s past shepherds neglected such responsibilities, Ezekiel charges (v. 4). But Yahweh, Israel’s divine king, shepherds the entire flock including its weakest members (v. 16). How a society and its leaders treat those who struggle against disadvantages speaks volumes about that society’s true values—not the ones it professes to hold, but those revealed in policy and action. North American society provides all too stark examples of our failure to imitate the divine shepherd. Too often the elderly are neglected, the homeless are disparaged, the sick are stigmatized, and foreigners are exploited.

     

     

     

    <Page 1467 ends>><Page 1468 begins>>

    Ezekiel 34:17-31, Yahweh Arbitrates, Establishes, and Initiates

    Ezekiel 34:17-22, Inter-flock Conflict

    Link to: Ezekiel 34:17

    COMMENTARY

    The third major subsection of Ezekiel 34, which can itself be subdivided into smaller sections based on the topics addressed, is cast in the form of a three-part prophetic proof saying. Turning now to address the flock (“As for you, my flock”) Yahweh declares, following a resumptive messenger formula, the intention to judge or arbitrate between strong and weak sheep. The reasons why such arbitration is necessary are identified in a series of accusations expressed as questions (vv. 18-19). Verse 20, introduced by the transitional “therefore” (˜@kl lAken) followed by the messenger formula, promises Yahweh’s intervention on behalf of the lean sheep. Verse 21, introduced by “because” (˜@[y ya(an) continues the indictment of vv. 18-19, adding the charge that the strong animals physically abuse the weak ones. In v. 22 God declares, “I will save my flock”; as a consequence, they will no longer be ravaged. Ezekiel does not provide specifics about the consequences of Yahweh’s arbitration for the flock’s oppressive members. One certainly presumes that God’s intervention will bring inter-flock conflict to an end. The strong sheep will not continue to bully the weak. Nevertheless, the reader who construes vv. 20-22 in the light of MT v. 16b (“but the fat and the strong I will destroy”) and with 20:37-38 in mind might well assume that oppressive and violent members of the flock will be eliminated. In this particular context, has Ezekiel blunted the extermination of abusive animals in order to foreground his overriding interest, God’s positive efforts on the flock’s behalf?

     

     

     

    <Page 1468 ends>><Page 1469 begins>>

    REFLECTIONS

    Ezekiel 34 speaks to the issue of what we would call responsible ecological stewardship. God’s creation is not ours to exploit, as Judah’s former kings exploited the flock entrusted to their care. Neither are we, like the strong, selfish members of the flock addressed in vv. 17-22, free to take more than our share of its resources, consuming at will and polluting what remains. Ezekiel’s world knew the devastation of flood and earthquake, of famine and drought, of warfare and plunder. We too know of such things; perhaps we have even experienced some of them. But Ezekiel’s world did not know the devastation of nuclear waste and chemical landfills, of cracked-open oil tankers and mountains of non-biodegradable trash. Today, chap. 34 speaks with a piercing relevance the prophet could not have imagined. 

    Ezekiel 34:23-24, Israel Tended by One Shepherd, God’s Servant David

    Link to: Ezekiel 34:23

    COMMENTARY

    Commentators sometimes express surprise at the contents of vv. 23-24, Yahweh’s promise to raise up over the sheep a single human shepherd, “my servant David” (the emphasis on a single shepherd likely reflects Ezekiel’s expectation that in the future, Israel will consist not of two separate kingdoms, but of one united kingdom), to tend them and to be prince among them. Hals speaks, for example, of “the unanticipated promise of a Davidic shepherd.”1145 For several reasons, however, the ancient reader likely is not surprised that Ezekiel moves in this direction. First, he has read chap. 17, which—like the present passage—speaks first of the failures of Judah’s last kings, second of Yahweh’s punitive response to their sins, and third of God’s future restoration of the Davidic dynasty. Ezekiel uses different imagery in that chapter—eagles, cedars, vines (see the Commentary on chap. 17). But the progression of thought in the two passages is essentially the same.1146 Second, the reader knows Jer 23:1-6(8), which likewise exhibits both shepherd/flock metaphors and the same sequence.1147 Third, he recognizes that references to David as shepherd and as Yahweh’s servant ruler fit sublimely into their context. On the one hand, tradition remembers David, the youthful shepherd, as a faithful tender of his father’s flock—one who risked his own life in order to protect the animals entrusted to his care (1 Sam 17:34-35). David’s actual shepherding style was the antithesis of the evil shepherds’ (metaphorical) “tending.” On the other hand, tradition remembers David as Israel’s king par excellence, the ruler for whom God established an unconditional, everlasting covenant: 

     

     

     

    <Page 1469 ends>><Page 1470 begins>>

     

     “your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me; your throne shall be established forever” (2 Sam 7:16; see also Jer 33:17, 20-21, 25-26). Critical though he be of Judah’s final Davidic kings, Ezekiel still insists that its only legitimate dynasty will be reinstituted in Israel’s future.

    The references to David in vv. 23 and 24, then, address the dilemmas of preceding verses at multiple levels. Israel’s shepherds failed to tend their flock and, in fact, exploited it in order to care for themselves. Young David, by contrast, cared for his father’s flock as an obedient and faithful shepherd should. A future Davidic shepherd (here called “prince,” aycn nAZî)) will tend Yahweh’s flock as did King David of old, God’s servant ruler (the title “my servant” is, in this context, both honorific and expressive of one’s obligation to obey one’s master). Unlike Israel’s past shepherds, who helped themselves to the best of Yahweh’s flock, this Davidide will tend the sheep on behalf of their true owner. As Levenson observes. “God does not send his messiah to rule; he rules through his messiah.”1148 

    At its outset, v. 24 echoes half of the traditional Sinai covenant formulation (e.g., “You are my people, and I am your God”; see, e.g., Deut 27:9; Jer 31:11; Hos 2:25). But the second half of v. 24 evokes thoughts of the Davidic covenant. Hence, the verse not only echoes both covenant traditions, but also yokes them. (See Reflections at 34:25-31.)

    Ezekiel 34:25-31, A Covenant of Peace

    Link to: Ezekiel 34:25

     

     

     

     

    <Page 1470 ends>><Page 1471 begins>>

    COMMENTARY

    Yahweh’s promise of a future “covenant of peace” (µ!wlv tyrb burît sAlôm) is followed by a description of its attending blessings: the eradication of dangerous beasts, such that one can rest securely throughout the land, including its least hospitable regions; lush vegetation sustained by adequate and reliable seasonal rains; and freedom from oppression and fear. Here, we find one of the fullest descriptions of Israel’s understanding of sAlôm as more than the absence of hostility or tension. Shalom speaks of wholeness, harmony, fulfillment, humans at peace with their environment and with God.”1149 

    What is this “covenant of peace” that God will make for (not “with”) them? What is its relationship to other covenants within the book of Ezekiel and beyond? Bernard Batto argues convincingly that the “covenant of peace” motif derives from ancient Near Eastern mythology about the primeval period. When divine/human hostility ended, the deities ceased their efforts to exterminate humankind and took an oath “to maintain peace and harmony with humankind and even with the whole of creation.”1150 The oath was confirmed by a “permanent visible sign” symbolizing the perpetuity of this new era of peace. The myth appears in two variations, designated by Batto as Pattern A and Pattern B. In the former, the gods attempt to exterminate humankind by flood. The latter lacks a flood account. Rather, a goddess seeks to slay humanity with her sword.1151 The influence of Pattern A is patent in the biblical flood accounts (J and P) found in Genesis 6–9. Pattern B may have left its imprint on the present passage, as we shall see below. According to Batto, certain of Israel’s prophets (Hosea, Ezekiel, Deutero-Isaiah, Zechariah) adopted the covenant of peace motif, which had grown and developed over the centuries. But they unlatched it from the primeval period and projected it into the future (Hos 2:18-25; Isa 54:10; Zech 8:10-12, Ezekiel 37). So, for example, in the present passage and in Isa 54:9-10, the assuaging of Yahweh’s anger is followed by God’s promise to establish an eternal covenant of peace with Israel.

    Zimmerli, and more recently Block, identify this covenant of peace with the “eternal covenant” which Yahweh will establish with Jerusalem, “his” faithless wife, in Ezek 16:60. To be sure, that passage says nothing of a covenant of “peace.” For Zimmerli, the addition of that word in this passage simply makes explicit the essence of covenant. A covenant establishes well-being, a healthy relationship between the covenant’s partners. This well-being extends throughout the nation’s sphere of life when Yahweh is the covenant partner who brings about peace.1152 

    It is by no means clear, however, that an ancient reader of Ezek 34:25-31 would identify its “covenant of peace” with the eternal covenant of 16:60. The latter appeared within the context of a metaphorical narrative about Jerusalem, a personified (female) city whose idolatrous cultic practices and inappropriate royal policies (e.g., forging and relying on international alliances) were presented as sexual infidelities threatening her marriage with Yahweh. To be sure, faithless Jerusalem embodies her inhabitants. But the female personification of the urban center is ubiquitous throughout chap. 16. Yahweh speaks of remembering God’s covenant with her in the days of her youth (most obviously a reference back to their marriage in 16:9) and establishing with her an everlasting bond, i.e., one that cannot be abrogated because Yahweh determines that it will not be.

    The “covenant of peace” in the present passage, by contrast, says little about God’s relationship with that city. To the contrary, the blessings of this covenant focus especially upon idyllic agrarian conditions. One wonders if Zimmerli, Block, and others have associated this passage with 16:60 under the influence of Hosea 2, where both female imagery (Israel’s land and its people are personified as women) and reference to a beneficent covenant (v. 18) appear. I do not deny that Ezek 34:25-30 bears some similarities to Hosea 2,

     

     

     

    <Page 1471 ends>><Page 1472 begins>>

     

     though there are differences as well.1153 As Batto has shown, both texts reflect the influence of the ancient Near Eastern motif discussed above (they share, for example, the notion of lying down in safety and of abundant harvests). Nevertheless, the equation of this passage’s covenant of peace with the eternal covenant of Ezek 16:60 seems strained.

    More probable is the reader’s conclusion that Yahweh’s covenant of peace is somehow associated with the one forged at Sinai. How could he not think of that treaty, when Ezekiel’s description of the blessings Israel will enjoy in the future echoes blessings associated with human fidelity to that ancient bond? The present passage evokes thoughts of the Sinaitic covenant blessings of Lev 26:1-13 and their counterpart in Deut 28:2-14. Yet this covenant of peace cannot adequately be explained simply as a renewing of the conditional Sinai covenant. In vv. 25-30, Ezekiel nowhere says that Yahweh’s covenant of peace depends upon the people’s obedience to a set of stipulations. Rather, he focuses upon Yahweh’s initiative (“I will make a covenant of peace for them”) and unconditional promises of safety, blessing, security, and freedom from oppression. So, while the benefits of the covenant in vv. 25-30 stir thoughts of that ancient treaty with its blessings (and curses), this covenant is presented as something new.

    The first consequence of Yahweh’s covenant of peace is the eradication of dangerous animals from Israel’s land (cf. Hos 2:18; Isa 11:6-8). Even the desert and its opposite, the forest, will be so safe that one can live and sleep in them. The desert is home to wild and noxious creatures. Forests are especially dangerous at night, when beasts prowl in search of food (see Ps 104:20-22).

    In the covenant curse of Lev 26:22, Yahweh threatens to bring ravenous beasts against Israel: “I will let loose wild animals against you, and they shall bereave you of your children and destroy your livestock; they shall make you few in number, and your roads shall be deserted.” Ezekiel has previously referred to such beasts as God’s instruments of punishment (5:17; 14:15, 21; 31:12-14; 33:27). Now, his promise recalls the covenant blessings of Lev 26:6: “And I will grant peace in the land, and you shall lie down and no one shall make you afraid; I will remove dangerous animals from the land, and no sword shall go through your land.” There, as here, “peace” is associated with the eradication of wild beasts, though Leviticus speaks also of sword-wielding foes.

    Verse 25 makes sense as an address to human beings. But the reader also can easily understand it as a promise to Yahweh’s “flock.” On the one hand, enemy nations are depicted as wild animals ravaging the sheep in Ezek 34:5, 8. On the other hand, eliminating fierce beasts would benefit flocks both literal and metaphorical. Indeed, the reference to residing securely in the desert and sleeping in the woods might be more appropriate to the flock metaphor.

    Verse 26 is difficult because the referent for “them” in the phrase “I will make them” is unclear, the identity of “my hill” is disputed, and its relationship to v. 25 is ambiguous. In the light of the immediately preceding verse, “them” might refer to the recipients of Yahweh’s covenant (“I will make with them a covenant of peace”), who can reside securely even in the land’s most harrowing areas. Alternatively “them” might be understood as a reference to the desert and forests of v. 25b. This second possibility is buttressed by the fact that the following phrase (“the region around my hill”) is, like desert and forests, a reference to place(s). “My hill” might well be construed by the ancient reader as a reference to Jerusalem (see Isa 10:32; 31:4). The fact that Ezekiel has not (and will not) use the name “Zion” does not rule out that possibility, since Jerusalem and its Temple are often his focus. (It is true, however, that the prophet does not elsewhere use “hill” in this way; cf. 6:3, 13; 20:28; 34:6; 35:8; 36:4, 6).

    The first half of v. 26, then, likely asserts Yahweh’s promise to make all of Israel’s land, including its most formidable regions, into a “blessing”—that is, “an exemplar of blessedness.”1154 In v. 26b, God promises that the land

     

     

     

    <Page 1472 ends>><Page 1473 begins>>

     

     will receive its seasonal rains, “showers of blessing.” As a consequence, lush vegetation will grow (v. 27a).1155 The trees of the field will yield their fruit, and the earth will bring forth its various crops. The people will be freed from the danger of drought, famine, starvation, and death. Secure on their soil, they will know that “I am Yahweh,” when God has freed them from slavery as in the exodus of old.1156 No longer will they be plunder for other nations or food for savage beasts. Fear will have no place in so safe an existence.

    In MT, v. 29 begins as follows: “And I shall establish for them a planting of renown” (µ!vl [fm mattA( lusem). The NRSV translates “a splendid vegetation”; the NIV reads “a land renowned for its crops.” The Hebrew text makes sense: so great will be the fertility of Israel’s land that the people will never again experience famine or the consequent insults of other nations. LXX, however, presupposes µ!lv [fm (mattA( sAlom), “a peaceful planting”; and commentators often emend the MT accordingly. Batto’s investigation of the “covenant of peace” motif offers some support for emending MT, for Pattern B examples of the core myth he examines include a submotif about the planting of peace in the earth. If, as Batto suggests, the text is one of several biblical references to this submotif, then it is possible that a knowledgeable reader might espy in MT a slight scribal error and read accordingly. Verses 28-29 address the Israelites literally (as people), rather than metaphorically (as the sheep of Yahweh’s flock). By this point, however, the reader is accustomed to Ezekiel’s tendency to permit literal referents to surface within metaphorical oracles (see, e.g., 16:41).

    Verse 30 commences with the opening words of the recognition formula (“and they shall know that . . . ”), followed by assurance of God’s presence with the people, itself a modified version of the Sinai covenant formula (see, e.g., Lev 26:12). The closing formula, “says the Lord God,” assures Ezekiel’s audience and his reader that his words are, in fact, God’s own. Verse 31, yet another variation on the Sinai covenant formula, explicitly returns to the flock metaphor. The NIV translation follows the MT (translating µ!da [)AdAm, “human”] as “people”), while the NRSV translation follows the LXX (where a Greek equivalent of )AdAm does not appear). This verse, like its predecessor, ends with the formula, “says the Lord God.”

    REFLECTIONS

    Ezekiel’s use of the shepherd/sheep metaphor has the power to realign our understanding of what responsible leadership entails. Like all metaphors, however, it requires thoughtful critique. Ezekiel anticipates that the reversal of his people’s plight will be initiated and sustained solely by God. When Yahweh, the good shepherd, reclaims the sheep, their every need will be met: the flock’s fat and abusive members will no longer ravage the other sheep or the environment; the good old days of David’s rule will return; the blessings of God’s unconditional covenant of peace will make possible life that, if not edenic, is certainly idyllic.

    Fertile soil, freedom from foe and fear—who among us does not yearn for such conditions? But if, for the prophet, the covenant of peace comes only as a result of divine volition, then what remains for humans to do? What role have we to play in setting the world right? It is one thing to acknowledge Yahweh as creator and liberator. It is quite a different thing passively to await God’s creative and liberating activity. Ezekiel’s metaphor affirms that ultimately, God is the source of salvation. But we are not sheep. We are, Genesis 1 insists, created in God’s image and entrusted with dominion over all other living things. Ironically, exercising dominion is an act of servantship. It demands responsibility; it certainly is not a license to exploit God’s “very good” creation.

     

     

     

    <Page 1473 ends>><Page 1474 begins>>

  • Dan Francis
    Dan Francis Member Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭

    Perhaps I am simply beating a dead horse seeing the progress bar never seems to move at all, but here is another sample…. This time the entire book of Philemon being so short i thought I would include it all.

    -Dan


    THE LETTER TO PHILEMON

    INTRODUCTION, COMMENTARY, AND REFLECTIONS

    BY

    CAIN HOPE FELDER

     

    <Page 881 Ends><Page 882 Begins>

     

    <Page 882 Ends><Page 883 Begins>

    THE LETTER TO 

    PHILEMON

    INTRODUCTION

    The Letter to Philemon is one of the seven letters that almost all biblical scholars hold were written by the apostle Paul. Having only twenty-five verses in its English rendering from the 335 words in the apostle's Greek original, Philemon is the shortest among the Pauline epistles. The textual integrity of the letter is complete (i.e., fully preserved) in twelve of the major uncial manuscripts, and there is a near-total word agreement among the Greek texts of the letter, with but few orthographical differences (in vv. 2, 6, 9, 12, 25).1

    Most commentators agree that Philemon reflects Paul's spirit, theology, moral tone, language, and style, as do 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans, and Philippians, the six other undisputed letters. Ancient church tradition links the letter to Paul, and the major catalogs of the New Testament canon from the early centuries (e.g., the late second-century Muratorian Fragment and Bishop Athanasius's thirty-ninth Festal Letter to his clergy in 367 CE, among others) list it among Paul's writings.

    DATE AND PLACE OF WRITING

    The Letter to Philemon differs significantly from Paul's other writings in two ways. First, it is not addressed to a church but to specific persons. Second, it is a letter of mediation to foster reconciliation between two individuals to whom Paul bears common relation as

     

    <Page 883 Ends><Page 884 Begins>

     their spiritual leader: Philemon, a slavemaster, and Onesimus, a slave who fled Philemon's household but who has returned, concerned to make things right. This letter was Paul's plea for a renewed relationship between the two, but one on better terms than before in the light of their mutual faith as Christians.

    Three options are usually set forth regarding the place from which Paul wrote the letter: Caesarea, Ephesus, or Rome. These are the places where Paul was imprisoned for considerable periods of time (although there were other occasions when he was taken into custody, as 2 Cor 11:23ff. reports). The dating of this letter depends in large measure on the location of its composition. If Paul wrote to Philemon from Rome, as seems most likely, then the letter was composed about 61 CE. If written during his imprisonment at Caesarea, the letter should be dated about 58 CE. If written from Ephesus, a date of 55 CE would be required.

    The argument for Rome as the place of composition has particular merit. Since Philemon was the overseer of the Lycus Valley house churches at Colossae (see the map “Main Roadways of Asia Minor,” 581), in Asia Minor, Onesimus, his slave, would most likely not have remained within a short distance from the household he had fled but would have found his way to Rome, where other runaway slaves from the provinces tended to seek refuge. Although Rome sought to protect slave owners' rights and even encouraged bounty for assistance in returning fugitive slaves to their owners, it is not certain that Onesimus was, in fact, a runaway at all or, if he was, that he had become one without just cause.

    Those who suggest Ephesus as the place of origin for this letter cite Paul's request that Philemon prepare lodging for his visit (v. 22) as an indication that Paul must have been imprisoned nearby. In addition to this, Ephesus was a provincial capital whose proximity to Colossae made it a more convenient destination for a slave without resources. Against this argument, however, is the fact, based on Col 4:7-9, that Onesimus and Tychicus were commissioned by Paul to carry letters from him to Ephesus, Laodicea, and Colossae. As for Caesarea as the place of writing, it is the most improbable choice of the three because of the difficulty in aligning events surrounding Paul's imprisonment there (see Acts 23:1–25) and the contents of this letter to Philemon.

    The circumstance occasioning the letter to Philemon has strong bearing on Col 4:7-9, which mentions Tychicus (“beloved brother, a faithful minister, and a fellow servant in the Lord,” Col 4:7) as someone who will update the Colossian church members concerning Paul's situation. The same text refers to Onesimus as traveling with him; Paul there described Onesimus as “the faithful and beloved brother, who is one of you” (Col 4:9). It is also instructive, and doubtless indicative, that this mention of Onesimus occurs just after the segment in Colossians that details the subordination codes pertaining to slaves and masters (Col 3:22–4:1; it should be noted that the injunction in Col 4:1, advising those who owned slaves to “treat your slaves justly and fairly, for you know that you also have a Master in heaven” is a unique principle for such stock codes).

     

    <Page 884 Ends><Page 885 Begins>

    FOCUS

    At first glance, the Letter to Philemon seems to focus almost entirely on the issue of slavery. Paul was imprisoned or under house arrest (vv. 9, 13, 23) as he wrote; nevertheless, he was able to provide refuge for the slave Onesimus, who for some reason had fled the household of his master, Philemon. Paul appeals to Philemon as a friend and fellow Christian to take Onesimus back and to receive him without penalty or prejudice, in view of the slave's conversion and new life in Christ, their common Lord. Thus the reference to Onesimus as a “beloved brother”; Onesimus had become a Christian in the interim between leaving Philemon's household and the time the letter was written. Paul's description of Onesimus as “my child, whose father I have become during my imprisonment” (v. 10) can be understood to mean that Paul was the primary human agent in helping Onesimus to become a Christian.

    The view widely held across many centuries is that this is a fairly straightforward personal letter in which Paul petitions his friend Philemon to forgive and restore his runaway slave, who was both a fugitive and a thief. Now, various questions can be raised about why Onesimus left Philemon's household and why he sought out Paul. Had he been abused by Philemon? Had he, in leaving Philemon, caused him to undergo some financial loss? However, although Paul recognized Philemon's “claim” upon Onesimus, nothing in the letter provides warrant for the notion that Onesimus was a criminal fugitive who had stolen something from his master.

    The central meaning and purpose of the Letter to Philemon concern the difference the transforming power of the gospel can make in the lives and relationships of believers, regardless of class or other distinctions. However, the way slavery has figured so prominently in modern history has obscured this deeper, more essential meaning and veiled the perennial significance of the letter. During the period of the European and American slave trade, many slave owners and other defenders of the system who laid claim to Christian leadership appealed to the Letter to Philemon to justify the racial stereotypes they held and the compliance they believed that Scripture requires from those under the slavery system. To be sure, the institution of slavery in the Roman Empire during the first century, the legal infrastructure that supported it, and the various moral judgments given in the New Testament regarding its legitimacy are issues that must be considered in reading the letter. However, close study of the text makes clear that Paul's primary focus is not on the institution of slavery but on the power of the gospel to transform human relationships and bring about reconciliation. There is no basis whatsoever for thinking of Onesimus as a progenitor of the African American slave, especially since the Roman Empire did not have a race-based policy for the institution of slavery, neither in the first century nor at any other time.2 All things considered, the way Paul's letter to Philemon is viewed provides

     

    <Page 885 Ends><Page 886 Begins>

     excellent opportunity for a case study about the ways in which a person's social location can serve as a tacit rationale for reading inappropriate values into the text, distorting the document's original intent.

    Quite apart from the fact that it was the work of Paul, the inclusion of the letter to Philemon in the New Testament canon would be justified on the basis of its message about reconciliation. Lloyd Lewis draws attention to Paul's use of “family language” in the letter: “brother” (vv. 1, 7, 16, 20), “sister” (v. 2), “my child...whose father I have become” (v. 10), and the like. The frequency of use of the terms is so pronounced that the communal-family emphasis cannot be viewed as coincidental. Lewis highlights Paul's noble intent expressed in those terms of endearment; the apostle exposes “an unwillingness to canonize the social roles found in his environment.”3

    In addition to the many published studies that report traditional interpretations of the Letter to Philemon, new studies have appeared seeking to buttress older views or to supply fresh perspective on how the letter should be viewed and explained. Sarah C. Winter has suggested that the Letter to Philemon was primarily written to a church and was only formally addressed to Philemon as the congregational overseer. The references to the situation between Philemon and Onesimus are explained as not so much dealing with personal matters as framing a paradigm for changing master/slave relationships into new opportunities for manumission and shared fellowship.4

    Perhaps the most dramatic departure from the traditional understanding of the Letter to Philemon of late is found in the work of Allen D. Callahan.5 Callahan seeks to dispel the idea that Onesimus was a slave at all, suggesting rather that he and Philemon were estranged biological brothers whom Paul sought to reconcile. Despite flashes of keen insight, Callahan's heavy reliance on “silences of the text” and his literal interpretation of Paul's words about Onesimus as “a beloved brother...in the flesh and in the Lord” (v. 16) as indicating a blood kinship between Onesimus and Philemon move the interpretive center of the letter too far from the more common and ancient understanding of Onesimus as a runaway slave.

    Eduard Lohse calls attention to the interpretive center of the Letter to Philemon in his majesterial commentary, citing Martin Luther's influential evaluation of the Pauline writing:

    This epistle gives us a masterful and tender illustration of Christian love. For here we see how St. Paul takes the part of poor Onesimus and, to the best of his ability, advocates his cause with his master. He acts exactly as if he were himself Onesimus, who had done wrong.

     

    <Page 886 Ends><Page 887 Begins>

     Yet, he does this not with force or compulsion, as lay within his rights; but empties himself of his rights in order to compel Philemon to waive his rights.6

    Luther's observation conveys his view that Onesimus had done something wrong, yet exactly who in the letter is the injured party or real victim has remained open to debate. It is quite possible, for example, that Onesimus's only offense was leaving the household of a master—Philemon—who had abused him in some way. There is greater warrant for such a scenario than for viewing Onesimus as a lazy or dishonest servant—the view found in the folklore that circulated among the ruling classes of the modern Western world, especially those who championed and benefited from the institution of slavery.

    While Paul's letter to Philemon does not focus on the issue of slavery, it certainly offers clues that help to clarify the apostle's moral stance on the issue. Paul was aware of the provisions in the Hebrew Bible that sanctioned some forms of slavery despite the abhorence of the Hebrews for the long period of their own bondage in Egypt. And, as a Roman citizen, he certainly knew the legal warrants for the system as practiced across the empire. He was astute enough to recognize that the role of a pronounced abolitionist would not only have been foolhardy for himself, despite his Roman citizenship, but it would also have been disastrous to the nascent Christian missionary movement. Such factors make all the more astonishing texts like Gal 5:1, “For freedom Christ has set us free. Stand firm, therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery”; or 1 Cor 7:21, which suggests that slaves should use every opportunity to gain manumission;7 or 2 Cor 11:20-21, which castigates those who let others enslave them. These statements, rightly viewed, are hardly the words of someone who approves of the institution of slavery. On the contrary, they reflect an attitude consistent with the appeal made in the Letter to Philemon, making the words found there all the more poignant and significant, for Paul is also the one who brought Philemon into the faith.

    BIBLIOGRAPHY

    Commentaries:

    Bruce, F. F. The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians. NIGNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984. A scholarly, evangelical commentary.

    Caird, George B. Paul's Letters from Prison. NCIB. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1976. A classic commentary that explores the theological meaning and historical background of Paul's letters.

    Dunn, James D. G. The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon: A Commentary on the Greek Text. NIGNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996. A scholarly commentary, particularly helpful for study of the Greek text.

    Knox, John. “The Epistle to Philemon: Introduction and Exegesis.” Interpreter's Bible. Vol. 10. Nashville: Abingdon, 1955. A classic commentary for preachers and teachers.

     

    <Page 887 Ends><Page 888 Begins>

     Lohse, Eduard. Colossians and Philemon. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971. A scholarly commentary, with extensive notes and references.

    Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. New York: United Bible Societies, 1971. An excellent overview of the textual variants of the NT writings.

    O'Brien, Peter T. Colossians, Philemon. WBC. Waco, Tex.: Word, 1982. A critical, scholarly, evangelical commentary.

    Osiek, Carolyn. Philippians, Philemon. ANTC. Nashville: Abingdon, 2000. A concise, critical commentary, particularly valuable for its analysis of rhetorical strategies and social realities.

    Other Specialized Studies:

    Bartchy, S. Scott. MALLON CRHSAI: First Century Slavery and the Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7:21. SBLDS. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1973. A detailed, scholarly analysis.

    Bruce, F. F. Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. A study of Paul's life and thought from an outstanding evangelical scholar.

    Callahan, Allen D. “Paul's Epistle to Philemon: Toward an Alternative Argumentum.” HTR 86:4 (1993). An intriguing reading of the Letter to Philemon.

    ———. Embassy of Onesimus: The Letter of Paul to Philemon. Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1997. A comprehensive statement of the author's provocative reading of the Letter to Philemon.

    Lewis, Lloyd A. “An African American Appraisal of the Philemon-Paul-Onesimus Triangle.” In Stony the Road We Trod: African American Biblical Interpretation. Edited by Cain Hope Felder. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1991. An analysis of the Letter to Philemon from a contemporary African American perspective.

    Martin, Ralph P. Reconciliation: A Study of Paul's Theology. Atlanta: John Knox, 1981. A comprehensive examination of Pauline theology, emphasizing reconciliation.

    Meeks, Wayne A. The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983. A classic study of the social environment of the early Christian movement.

    Sampley, J. Paul. Pauline Partnership in Christ: Christian Community and Commitment in Light of Roman Law. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980. A study of partnership in Paul's missionary work and writing as influenced by concepts in Roman law.

    Winter, S. C. “Methodical Observations of a New Interpretation of Paul's Letter to Philemon.” Union Seminary Quarterly Review 39 (1984).

     

    <Page 888 Ends><Page 889 Begins>

    OUTLINE OF PHILEMON

    I. Philemon 1:1-3, Opening Greetings

    II. Philemon 1:4-7, Philemon Is Commended for His Faith and Charity

    III. Philemon 1:8-20, Paul's Request Regarding Onesimus

    IV. Philemon 1:21-22, Paul's Expectation to Visit

    V. Philemon 1:23-25, Concluding Words and Benediction

     

    <Page 889 Ends><Page 890 Begins>

     

    <Page 890 Ends><Page 891 Begins>

    PHILEMON 1-3

    OPENING GREETINGS

    COMMENTARY

    Following the conventional forms of letter writing of his time, Paul names himself first as the one writing; then Timothy, a known close associate who was with him as he wrote. Finally he names the intended recipients: Philemon; Apphia and Archippus, two presumably key persons within Philemon's circle, possibly even family members; and the “church in [Philemon's] house.” Paul describes himself as a “prisoner” (de;smiov desmios, vv. 1, 9), which was his current situation, being in custody. However, he wanted it clearly understood that he did not view himself as a battle casualty but as an obedient servant to Jesus Christ. Thus the full self-designation “prisoner of Christ Jesus,” which could also mean “prisoner for Christ Jesus” (as the Greek was rendered previously in the RSV).

    Paul's self-description here as “prisoner of Christ Jesus” deviates from his more customary self-reference in the undisputed letters as an “apostle of Jesus Christ” (see 1 Cor 1:1; 2 Cor 1:1; Gal 1:1; etc.); in the deutero-Pauline Eph 3:1 we find his self-reference as “prisoner for Christ Jesus”; at Eph 4:1, “prisoner in the Lord”; and at 2 Tim 1:8, “me his prisoner.” It is clear that Paul always associated his imprisonments with having been obedient to his Lord. Callahan has suggested that “perhaps Paul's failure to claim his apostolic credentials here, which he so readily flashes before those congregations he has established personally, is better understood as a reflection of his rhetorical situation vis-à-vis churches in which his personal standing and relationship are less than certain.”8 Paul did sometimes assert his claims to apostolicity when his credentials were challenged by opponents; this is seen in his writing to the Corinthians and the Galatians. Yet it was not necessary for him to do so here; since he did not have to assert leadership priority in dealing with a house church that he did not plant, his apostleship is not being questioned. Paul is merely sending this particularly personal letter to Philemon, whom he addresses as his “dear friend and co-worker.”

    Philemon is not named elsewhere in the Pauline corpus or in the early Christian literature. Apart from his appearance by name in this letter, nothing more is known concerning him except that he was a slave owner, a head of a household, a leader of a church group that met within his properties, and, by inference, that he was engaged in some business that supported his status. (As for the name “Philemon,” it was as common in the Greek-speaking culture as are “John” and “Joe” in English-speaking countries.)9

     

    <Page 891 Ends><Page 892 Begins>

     Paul addressed Philemon as “dear friend” (ajgaphto;v agapetos, “beloved one”); the abstract adjective seems appropriate because he and Paul had known each other in some settings as coworkers in the furtherance of the gospel. Koinwni"a (Koinonia), or “fellowship,” exists between them, and Paul highlights this fact as he addresses his friend. Callahan suggests that this was Paul's way of preparing Philemon for the claim this letter would press upon him as he read it, “co-worker” being not only initially descriptive but finally prescriptive as well.

    Apphia is traditionally assumed to have been Philemon's wife; that she was so is asserted by John Chrysostom (c. 344/354–407) in his first homily on the Letter to Philemon. Since Philemon is referred to as “beloved,” some scribes added “the beloved” after her name as well in making copies of this letter, as many cursives (copies written in small cursive letters) reveal. As for Archippus, some commentators suggest that the person identified here by that name is the same person mentioned in Col 4:17. Indeed, many have promoted the view of Theodore of Mopsuestia (c. 350–428), influential Antiochene exegete and theologian, that the Archippus greeted here was a son of Philemon and Apphia. The paucity of information from that early period of church history has prompted the pressing of meager data into unwarranted and dubious constructions. Nevertheless, Paul's greeting—addressing them together with Philemon—indicates that both Apphia and Archippus were important figures in the house church headed by Philemon. Archippus is also addressed in loving terms, being greeted as “our fellow soldier” (sustratiw"thv systratiotes). F. F. Bruce has commented that “some personal association with Archippus in the work of the gospel is implied, but what it was is unknown to us.”10

    “The church in your house” is mentioned by way of extension. Paul acknowledges the work for which Philemon was responsible and shows concern for the welfare of the assembly. He was aware that Philemon and his family, so intimately related to the congregation for which Philemon had oversight, would appreciate a word that included the group's welfare. Moreover, Paul knew that the plea he was about to make to Philemon in this letter, no matter how it might be handled, would affect social relations within the assembly. So the formulaic close of the apostle's greetings, the implied prayer for continued “grace to you [plural] and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ,” is more than a simple expression of courtesy. The greetings and implied prayers found in Paul's correspondence always convey his pastoral concern.11

    REFLECTIONS

    1. A true soldier understands orders and obeys them, strengthened by trust in the cause and a disciplined will to fulfill a known duty. Paul understood himself as a soldier for Christ, a man under orders, so he had no shame in being a prisoner; he knew it was in the interest of the cause he served.

    Imprisoned, with a Roman soldier always in his presence or within sight, Paul was reminded constantly of his own ties to authority. He viewed himself as a soldier sent out by his Lord under orders to deal with evil. Though confined for a time, he was content because he had been “captured” while “in battle.” The soldier image must have been uppermost in his mind when, in greeting Philemon, Paul remembered his ties with Archippus (possibly Philemon's son) and greeted him as well, calling him “fellow soldier.” Images from military life may not be as stimulating to the present generation as to those of the past, but it is not possible to understand the depth of Paul's commitment to Christ and his willingness to undergo his many periods of confinement in prison without taking into account the positive aspects of what it means to be “under orders” and to obey them despite the costs involved (cf. 2 Cor 9:16).

    2. The church at Colossae, perhaps still in its early growth stage, was blessed by a hosting home where its members could meet. Stated church buildings would come only in the future 

     

    <Page 892 Ends><Page 893 Begins>

     (the third century, to be exact), but at that early time the nascent church realized itself and promoted its mission through gatherings in homes. The home was central to the tasks envisioned, the place where worship and learning could take place and fellowship could be experienced. Churches in our time have been discovering anew the importance of small-group life in teaching, in learning, and in community ministry.

    With so much in our day that militates against quality time at home, there must be a commitment on the part of a family to provide space and time for church gatherings in the home setting. A church gains something vital when cells of believers can meet for prayer, Bible study, or fellowship in a home setting. Despite the conveniences afforded in other places available for congregational uses, it is in the home that openness beckons, love is promoted, unselfishness is modeled, intimacy deepens, encouragement is gained, and integrity is nurtured.

    3. At the beginning of the third millennium, the phrase “church in your house” seems rather foreign; popular culture portrays the modern home as a secular institution. However, reflecting on that phrase takes us to the historical depths of church life—that is, the way particular congregations began and who assisted in their development. Many a vital church began when some person or family offered their dwelling place as a meeting site to help start a fellowship group. Providing space was a ministry that generated cooperation, cohesion, and growth—and that spawned other ministries.

    A wise Christian fellowship will keep track of its life as it develops, teaching truths, marking trends, and charting timelines. And a caring church will honor those whose commitment encourages growth and ministry to happen. In modern consumer-oriented societies where so much is readily thrown away to make room for what is next, church leaders with vision will acquaint themselves and the other members of their congregation with information about their group's history, and they will inspire members to appreciate and add to that history through commitment to duties essential for a vital ministry.

     

    <Page 893 Ends><Page 894 Begins>

    PHILEMON 4-7

    PHILEMON IS COMMENDED FOR HIS FAITH AND CHARITY

    COMMENTARY

    Paul's pastoral concern involved him regularly in prayers for the churches under his care, for his coworkers, and for those converted under his ministry. Philemon, one of Paul's own converts (v. 19) as well as his “dear friend and co-worker,” here learns about the prayers offered to God by Paul on his behalf. Those prayers are filled with thanksgiving over reports from others that Philemon shows “love for all the saints” and a contagious “faith toward the Lord Jesus” (v. 5). But they also include intercession, with the apostle asking God to help Philemon share his faith, informed by the knowledge of all the good ways in which this can be done and with an increased effectiveness that honors Christ, his Lord.

    These words show us something more than a customary thanksgiving section of a letter: They reveal a specific commendation from Paul to Philemon. Although Paul wrote with particular instances of Philemon's charity in mind, many of which were shared with him by Epaphras (who is named in v. 23) and perhaps by Onesimus as well, no such details appear in this letter. Paul is impressed by Philemon's charitable disposition and pays him tribute, acknowledging his deeds as having been done in love and inspired by his faith in the Lord Jesus. “Love” (ajga"ph agape) and “faith” (pi;stiv pistis) are highlighted here by Paul as they are in his other letters, but it is interesting that while “faith” is usually mentioned first elsewhere, “love” receives first mention here. It is likely that Paul was thinking strategically about the issue for which the letter was being sent, hoping that Philemon's charitable disposition would allow the forthcoming appeal regarding Onesimus to be received with understanding and acceptance.

    Paul's words of tribute regarding Philemon's charity were not merely literary flourish or contrived flattery. They were an honest expression based on known facts regarding Philemon, knowledge gained, perhaps, from Paul's own previous experience with him, but surely from the good reports heard from others whose lives had been touched in helpful, meaningful ways by the man. Paul, therefore, adds a personal comment about his own emotion resulting from such good reports: “I have received much joy and encouragement 

     

    <Page 894 Ends><Page 895 Begins>

     from your love, because the hearts of the saints have been refreshed through you, my brother” (v. 7). Paul's words here are remarkably similar to those in 3 John 3, where John the Elder confesses his joy over reports about Gaius's “faithfulness to the truth, namely how you walk in the truth.” Bruce has commented, “It is a pleasant coincidence that the two really personal letters in the NT should both be addressed to men so like-minded in their generosity.”12

    Paul's intercessory prayers for Philemon included concern regarding what the NIV translates as being “active in sharing your faith,” but which the NRSV renders as “the sharing of your faith.” All told, that “sharing” (koinwni"a koinonia) would involve Philemon's witnessing to others about his faith as well as doing deeds that showed evidence of his faith. Generosity is the present focus, and that becomes clearly noted in v. 7 where Paul mentions how the “hearts of the saints have been refreshed [ajnape;pautai anapepautai, “calmed,” “comforted,” “relieved”]” through Philemon's charitable deeds. This commendation covers much about which we have no knowledge, but “the saints” did, and from personal experience.

    While this much is certainly understood from the commendation in vv. 4-5, the grammatical construction of v. 6 leaves us perplexed by translation difficulties and many alternative exegetical possibilities. The Greek wording in v. 6 is awkward in its phrasing; the intended meaning of the crucial term koinonia, especially linked with pistis, remains unclear. The differences between the NIV and the NRSV in translating the Greek are readily noted; other translation options can be observed by comparing additional renderings of v. 6 in English:

    The New English Bible: “My prayer is that your fellowship with us in our common faith may deepen the understanding of all the blessings that our union with Christ brings us [or “that bring us to Christ”].”

    New American Standard: “And I pray that the fellowship of your faith may become effective through the knowledge of every good thing which is in you for Christ's sake.”

    The New King James Version: “...that the sharing of your faith may become effective by the acknowledgment of every good thing which is in you in Christ Jesus.”

    Good News: “My prayer is that our fellowship with you as believers will bring about a deeper understanding of every blessing which we have in our life in Christ.”

    Paul's use of koinonia, linked in the context with the genitive pi;stewv (pisteos) and the possessive sou (sou), requires strict attention. While koinonia primarily means “common participation” in something, as equal sharers, the question raised by linking that word in the verse with pisteos sou, “your faith,” is whether that “common participation” should be understood as objective—the fellowship or sharing that results from faith—or as subjective—one's experience of a commonly shared faith. If Paul intended the subjective meaning, then his prayer for Philemon was that God would make him increasingly knowledgeable and effective in the ways that good can be accomplished for, in, and through Christ. “To perceive (or understand) and appreciate all the good [ejpignw"sei panto;v ajgaqou' epignosei pantos agathou]” no doubt refers ultimately to beneficial deeds and helpful relationships. As he wrote or dictated this passage of the letter, Paul was surely solicitous for Philemon to respond graciously to the request he was about to make on behalf of that leader's returning slave, Onesimus.

    REFLECTIONS

     1. Paul wrote with a quill dipped in the inkwell of grace. He offered thanksgiving to God for Philemon, and he confessed this to Philemon, thus complimenting him. Everyone has times of feeling misunderstood or unappreciated. And we are usually strengthened when appreciation for us is expressed or when good deeds we have done are acknowledged. At the same time, the person who expresses that appreciation is usually gladdened for having done so. While it may sometimes be vain to seek approval, the need for recognition is a basic human quality.

     

    <Page 895 Ends><Page 896 Begins>

     2. Paul knew of Philemon's social position and wealth. Paul did not commend him, however, for either his station or his possessions, but rather for his gracious and more just use of them. Not only had Philemon done good in “refreshing the hearts of the saints,” but he also had done so in right ways and in the right spirit. The dignity of those who benefited from Philemon's largesse was not undermined but undergirded by the spirit he showed in sharing. No wonder Paul, like many others, no doubt, heard about Philemon's “love for all the saints.” One is reminded of the line in William Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice:

    How far that little candle throws its beams!

    So shines a good deed in a naughty world. (5.1.90)

    Differences in status or financial condition should never get in the way of helping someone in distress, especially someone in the community of faith (see Gal 6:10). Christian love not only establishes new “familial” bonds, but also dictates timely action when needs are known.

     

    <Page 896 Ends><Page 897 Begins>

    PHILEMON 8-20

    PAUL'S REQUEST REGARDING ONESIMUS

    COMMENTARY

    Having reiterated the basis for rapport between himself and Philemon (this being clear from the singular use of “you” in vv. 4-21), Paul now begins the primary message the letter is sent to convey. Thus the “therefore” (dio; dio), which here is translated “for this reason” (v. 8).

    The intercession for Onesimus begins, couched in carefully chosen terms but offered in frankness: “I...appeal to you” (v. 9). Paul was aware that 

     

    <Page 897 Ends><Page 898 Begins>

     his situation as intercessor was legally defensible, Roman law having provided for cases of advocacy on behalf of runaway slaves who returned to their master. He also knew that he had a right to intercede on behalf of the now-converted runaway slave as Christ's apostle (thus the use of presbu;thv [presbytes, “ambassador”]). Paul surprises us, however, by choosing not to appeal to Philemon from either position of authority. He makes his appeal for Onesimus “on the basis of love.”

    The appeal Paul is about to make is prefaced by a statement of relationship with Onesimus that notifies Philemon about a new fact concerning his runaway slave: “I am appealing to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become during my imprisonment” (v. 10). John Knox commented that “this clearly means that Onesimus has become a believer in Christ under Paul's influence.”13 Peter T. O'Brien has suggested that:

    This was the first news Philemon had received of his slave since he ran away and he might be expected to react negatively to the mention of his name. So with delicate tact Paul first establishes the central fact that Onesimus has become a Christian, converted during Paul's imprisonment.14

    The situation of Onesimus as a runaway slave returning to face Philemon, his master, raises many questions. Why did Onesimus leave in the first place? Where did he go, and where could he expect refuge? If Onesimus had committed some crime, had Philemon published a reward notice regarding him? If so, then how widely would that reward notice have been circulated and known? If there was a reward notice, then Onesimus would have had increased need to remove himself as far from the master's arena of influence (Colossae) as resources and opportunity would allow. If he traveled as far from Colossae as Rome, then perhaps he came to Paul's notice through some encounter with Christians there, Onesimus having sought them out for whatever initial reasons.

    But it is also possible that Onesimus went looking for Paul, aware of Paul's influence on Philemon. Paul could be an advocate for him in resolving his situation as a runaway slave. Roman law regarding returning slaves did allow a friend of the master to advocate on the returning slave's behalf in the interest of his or her safety and well-being.15

    There are still other questions. Had Philemon disappointed Onesimus, promising manumission and then delaying it? Had Onesimus reached thirty years of age, when freedom was sometimes granted to faithful and deserving slaves, and escaped because he had been denied it?16

    There is all too little about Onesimus's situation that can be stated with certainty; too much is left for conjecture. But the little that is given in the Letter to Philemon is positive rather than negative. Onesimus has become converted, Paul's “child” (te;knon teknon) in the faith (v. 10). He is now even more “useful” than before, since we must assume that he had served Philemon in some meaningful capacity before his decision to leave or escape Philemon's household. Paul's statement that “formerly he was useless [a[crhstov achrestos] to you” (v. 11) could have been intended to cover only the period Onesimus was absent from Philemon and the problems associated with that absence, and, therefore, was not intended to mean that Onesimus was always a lazy or shiftless person. The notice that “now he is indeed useful [eu[crhstov euchrestos] both to you and to me” completes Paul's play on the meaning of the returning slave's name  Onh;simov (Onesimos), which in Greek means “useful,” “profitable.” This name was common among slaves, either bestowed in tribute or perhaps as an incentive to usefulness and a master's profit. Now, as a converted person, Onesimus was more useful than ever.

    Paul had no doubt benefited from that usefulness during the time Onesimus had been with him, thus his words “useful both to you and to me.” Because of that usefulness, and having become fond of the slave, Paul would have kept Onesimus with him (see v. 13); but a reconciliation needed to occur between the runaway and

     

    <Page 898 Ends><Page 899 Begins>

     his master. The two, as Christians, needed to become friends—no longer one the master and the other a slave. So Paul writes: “I am sending him...back to you” (v. 12).

    The appeal Paul makes, on the basis of love, not law, is for Philemon to receive Onesimus back “no longer as a slave but more than a slave, a beloved brother—especially to me but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord” (v. 16). Here is the substance of the appeal. Paul knew that this request might well test Philemon's heart, so Paul reveals his own emotion, confessing that Onesimus was linked with his heart: “I am sending him, that is, my own heart, back to you” (NIV, “[he] is my very heart”).

    Raymond E. Brown maintains that through appealing to Philemon's cooperativeness rather than censuring him, Paul challenged “a Christian slave owner to defy the conventions: To forgive and receive back into the household a runaway slave; to refuse financial reparation when it is offered, mindful of what one owes to Christ as proclaimed by Paul; to go farther in generosity by freeing the servant; and most important of all from a theological viewpoint to recognize in Onesimus a beloved brother and thus acknowledge his Christian transformation.”17

    Paul has already stated that he was not seeking to impose his own will (v. 14) or to use any authority he possessed (v. 8) to achieve the goal of his appeal; but some forcefulness is evident in his words in v. 17, when he invokes the rules of partnership: “So if you consider me your partner, welcome him as you would welcome me.” Having earlier referred to himself as Christ's “ambassador” (presbytes, v. 9), Paul here suggests that Philemon favorably honor his petition by accepting Onesimus with the same cordial diplomacy an envoy or ambassador expects and enjoys in representing the one who sends him or her. By introducing the concept of partnership, a mercantile image, Paul thereby invokes its terms, calling upon Philemon to honor all that partnership involves and implies: acceptance, trust, regard, divisions of responsibility in a common purpose, and equality of sharing (in profits and losses).18 This explains in part why Paul could so readily move forward to accept as his own any debts owed Philemon by Onesimus: “If he has wronged you in any way, or owes you anything, charge that to my account” (v. 18).

    It must be noted from Paul's wording that he has allowed for the possibility of wrongdoing by Onesimus, but he does not mention that he knows of any. His “if” is probably more than rhetorical; it allows Philemon to reckon any damages due him, since only he would know of these. Like Paul's worthy greeting at the beginning of the letter, this gesture of willingness to assume responsibility for Onesimus, debts and all, was carried out in good faith. Paul was thus honoring the mutual dictates of partnership, and Philemon was being challenged to do the same. To authenticate that this was his own true pledge as Onesimus's guarantor, Paul did what was his custom when certifying his involvement in some special matter or action, signing his name in his own special way: “I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand: I will repay it” (v. 19a). (On Paul's custom of authenticating his presence and involvement in a letter, see 1 Cor 16:21; Gal 6:11; 2 Thess 3:17.)

    Interestingly, if Colossians was written by Paul—and at about the same time as the letter to Philemon—Paul may have thought about the situation of Onesimus as he wrote the injunctions addressed in Col 3:22-25 to Christians who were slaves, particularly the warning Col 3:25: “For the wrongdoer will be paid back for whatever wrong has been done, and there is no partiality.” But immediately thereafter, this stricture addressed to masters appears: “Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, for you know that you also have a Master in heaven” (Col 4:1). Although the injunctions to masters and slaves in some of Paul's letters reflect aspects of the social structure of the churches he addressed, it is natural to wonder whether in this case he had Onesimus and Philemon in mind. Given his stress on justice and fairness regarding slaves, one can reasonably argue that while Paul understood societal conventions and social groupings, he saw some of them ultimately as antithetical to Christian fulfillment through the koinwni"a (koinonia) relationship made possible in Christ, as Col 3:11 and Gal 3:28 dramatically declare.

     

    <Page 899 Ends><Page 900 Begins>

    REFLECTIONS

    1. Pastoral or ecclesiastical authority based on church law is often used as a warrant and resource in dealing with church problems. However, the more Christlike and creative approach calls for the spirit of persuasiveness, conditioned by love; and this usually yields a more peaceable and long-lasting harvest of harmony.

    2. It is the work of divine grace to make “unprofitable” persons profitable. When apprehended by a sense that God's favor is being personally felt and known, every person can be changed into someone whose life offers profit (beneficial fruit) to God and to others. This is the triumph of Christ, his very reason for coming into the world; but it happens only through his “begetting” work in our lives.

    Those who have been “born anew” must show others what that new birth means and can effect in everyday, practical terms. The highest and noblest service we believers can render is to reach beyond established barriers of human separation, social class, and ethnicity and touch the lives of persons who are considered “different” and “unprofitable” and, like Paul, help them in Christ to become “useful.” However wasted anyone's life may seem to be, that person must never be written off. God's grace can intercept us, intervene in our particular situations, inspire hope in our hearts, and bring about needed change in our lives. There is a purpose for the life of each and all, and there is a service to be rendered by each of us in this world.

    3. Written as a personal request, the Letter to Philemon could be considered a missive of “limited application.” But in the light of the social problems of slavery and the repercussions of its existence and support in the centuries since Paul's day, the concern Paul expressed in this brief letter must be understood and valued as more than an ancient and isolated issue. The important theme in the letter was never highlighted in any of the great theological debates of the ancient church. Divine providence was at work in preserving this letter, for it speaks more forcefully in these later times to us, perhaps, than it did in the first century CE to Philemon, its initial primary reader.

    Paul sent Onesimus, a runaway slave, back to his master, Philemon. Many modern readers bristle at Paul's action. They are influenced by modern notions of freedom and an abhorrence of all systems that delimit and circumscribe human dignity. Why did Paul not provide Onesimus with continued refuge? And why did he not overtly condemn the system of slavery within the Roman Empire at that time?

    One explanation offered is that Paul did not view slavery as a wrongful institution. Being a Roman citizen, and hence someone who enjoyed the privileges associated with that social boon, he accepted the empire's customs and social systems as a given, and hence he felt no need, even as a Christian, to oppose slavery.

    Another explanation put forward defends Paul's deed of returning Onesimus to Philemon by appealing to Paul's apocalyptic views as expressed in 1 Cor 7:29a, 31b. It suggests that because of Paul's view that “the appointed time has grown short” and that “the present form of this world is passing away,” he was tolerant of the slavery system and content to live with it, informed by an interim-ethic. However, it must be pointed out that apocalyptic concerns have often served as a catalyst for radical action and protest, both within the Old Testament period and in New Testament times.

    There is another more sensible way to answer the question, and it forms an explanation based on three pieces of evidence: this very letter to Philemon, Paul's steady emphasis on freedom in his writings, and a statement in 1 Cor 7:21. All of these passages underscore the personhood of slaves and thus grant us fresh perspective for viewing the socioeconomic arrangement of the master/slave relationship. When Paul made his plea to Philemon to “receive 

     

    <Page 900 Ends><Page 901 Begins>

     [Onesimus, now converted] back no longer as a slave but more than a slave, a beloved brother” (v. 16), it should be forcefully clear that Paul wanted Philemon to honor their new tie as Christians above and beyond any legal demands. Their relationship was to be conditioned by love, not law, now that they were linked by faith, and not fealty.

    Surely Paul must have sensed what this stipulation could mean in the long run and on an even wider scale, not only within but also beyond the household of Philemon. Paul's action here was that of a true ambassador, which is how he earlier described himself (v. 9). In returning Onesimus to Philemon, Paul used a form of diplomacy that appears to ignore one aspect of the slavery problem while offering his rationale for a new social arrangement that would in time effect a deeper concern and wider results.

    4. In the Declaration of Independence of the United States, the first among the truths held and listed as “self-evident” are these: “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” (Interestingly, at the time these truths were declared in writing, the Negro slave was not included, being viewed, rather, as but “three-fifths” of a person!) The full truth is this: Every person is unique and of worth because every person is made in the image of God; so human relations are fundamental and crucial. We who preach and teach must be leading examples and instruments of God's will in reaching out to people, in regarding each and all, in responding to acknowledged need, and in working steadily for the human good of all.

    Unlike Paul's setting, which was dominated by Rome's monolithic, worldwide system of rule, our surroundings are smaller pockets of organized life within which our voices and votes and personal vision can have some impact. Paul was a significant actor within the world of his time, and his wit and will brought results far beyond his calculation and time. We who serve “the present age” must look to the same Lord for guidance in meeting the demands of our time and place. Paul was convinced that God's “plan for the fullness of time, [is] to gather up all things in [Christ]” (Eph 1:10). Our rightful work falls within that plan, and it is ours to serve our Lord with faith, courage, and commitment. While mindful that human servants can never bring in God's kingdom, we—like Paul—must work in this world with kingdom values informing and influencing our lives and deeds.

     

    <Page 901 Ends><Page 902 Begins>

    PHILEMON 21-22

    PAUL'S EXPECTATION TO VISIT

    COMMENTARY

    Paul was intent to do all within his power to reconcile Philemon and Onesimus. The apostle volunteered to remove any stumbling blocks to that desired end, and his letter spells out his role in the process. With Onesimus having been sent back to him, the rest would be up to Philemon. Paul asserted, doubtless for Philemon's encouragement, that he was “confident of [Phi-

    lemon's] obedience” (v. 21), presumably to the dictates of Christian love, and that he expected Philemon to “do even more” than he had suggested.

    Paul may have hoped that, once Philemon and Onesimus were reconciled, Onesimus might be released by Philemon to assist Paul in ministry. The slave was now “a beloved brother” who had proved to be “indeed useful”; his service was viewed by Paul as a possible further expression of Philemon's generosity (through Onesimus's manumission?). Onesimus could by mutual agreement be of service to Paul (in Philemon's place) during the apostle's imprisonment (see v. 13).

    Paul expected eventually to be freed from prison and, therefore, expresses his hope to visit Philemon. Thus the second and last request made in the letter: “One thing more—prepare a guest room for me, for I am hoping through your prayers to be restored to you” (v. 22). The apostle was eager to visit Philemon and the believers at Colossae. This request reflects a more relaxed mood on Paul's part, but it also reflects his knowledge about Philemon's resources as a householder with the means to provide hospitality and support for guests at times of need. It is interesting that in reporting that he expects “to be restored to you,” Paul returns to the plural for the first time since v. 3. This might well imply his recognition that Apphia—or even the entire membership of the house church—should also be informed of his plan to visit. Meanwhile, he lives in hope (ejlpi"zw elpizo) for this event, trusting their prayers, along with his own, to be fulfilled in God's time.

     

    <Page 902 Ends><Page 903 Begins>

    PHILEMON 23-25

    CONCLUDING WORDS AND BENEDICTION

    COMMENTARY

    The list of persons who sent greetings along with Paul is instructive, and their appearance in this letter provides a clue regarding the location of Philemon and his house church. Epaphras, mentioned first as Paul's “fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus” (v. 23), would surely have known Philemon at close range, since he was from Colossae (see Col 1:7-8; 4:12-13). Described as a “fellow prisoner,” which should be understood literally, Epaphras was no doubt serving as a personal attendant to Paul, perhaps quartered with him along with the soldier holding authority over Paul. The kind of custody Paul experienced as a Roman citizen allowed him freedom to “conscript” volunteers to serve his outside interests while confined himself. It is possible that by adding “in Christ Jesus” to the description, Paul is really describing Epaphras as standing in close relation to him as a slave would be; a personal slave would have a freedom of access to an imprisoned “master” that others, even close friends, could not share.18 Epaphras's role as a personal attendant, then, was something different in kind or extent than Timothy's, who is referred to as “our brother” (v. 1), while Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke are described as “my fellow workers” (v. 23).

    Mark, here, is the same John Mark of the book of Acts (see Acts 12:12, 25; 15:37, 39; Col 4:10; 2 Tim 4:11; 1 Pet 5:13), and it is likely that the Aristarchus mentioned here is the same person spoken of in Acts 19:29; 20:44; 27:2; and Col 4:10. If the view is accepted that the Letter to Philemon was written from Rome, then one can harmonize the data in Acts and Colossians to locate Aristarchus with Paul during Paul's imprisonment there, and thus relate Colossians and Philemon as having been written at about the same time. Demas, also mentioned elsewhere as being among Paul's circle of workers (Col 4:14; 2 Tim 4:10), joined Paul, Luke “the beloved physician” (Col 4:14), and the others in a statement of greeting to Philemon as Paul prepared to close the letter.

    The letter required no final instructions. Its message had been shared, its appeal made, and a confidence expressed that its purpose would be honored. So Paul concluded the letter with his customary, brief, but earnest, benediction: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit” (v. 25). F. F. Bruce, in his commentary on this letter, asked: “Was Paul's request granted? Yes; otherwise the letter to Philemon would not have survived. That it survived at all is a matter calling 

     

    <Page 903 Ends><Page 904 Begins>

     for comment, but if Philemon had hardened his heart and refused to pardon and welcome Onesimus, let alone send him back to Paul, he would certainly have suppressed the letter.”20

    REFLECTIONS

    A close look at the names of those who joined Paul in his final greeting to Philemon brings to view some treasured members of the apostle's circle. Those names, and the histories connected with them, also provide evidence of Paul's charisma as a person and as a leader.

    Paul's personality involved something contagious that went far beyond any limitations to his physical appearance. Based on a legendary account of how he looked—the account being so plain and unflattering that the legend seems to embody some truth—Paul was “a man small of stature, with a balding head and crooked legs, in a good state of body, with eyebrows meeting and nose somewhat hooked, full of friendliness.”20 That phrase “full of friendliness” tells much about how Paul was known as a person and as a leader.

    Three among those named were Gentile Christians: Epaphras, Demas, and Luke; the other two were Hebrews. The New Testament records both their distinctiveness and their unity. Most important, they were vital and valued members of Paul's circle. They were with him because Paul was a dynamic, creative leader.

    What were some of Paul's leadership traits?

    (1) Paul led as he was being led: “Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ” (1 Cor 11:1). Enthralled by his Lord, that supreme person Christ Jesus, Paul was forever busy listening for Christ's voice, forever seeking to fulfill the vision laid out for his life by his Lord. Paul not only knew the name “Jesus,” but also he experienced the risen Jesus.

    (2) Paul appreciated, recognized, and encouraged others. The many gracious compliments found in his letters are genuine, and not merely contrived. He was not making verbal backslaps with political ends in mind. Leaders of integrity, leaders who value people as persons, avoid the semblance of friendship.

    (3) Paul always kept “the big picture” in view as he planned and worked. Even in this letter, something larger remains in view than the reconciling of Onesimus and Philemon, as essential as that was. Paul was eager to see the Christian enterprise move forward with greater effectiveness (see v. 6).

    (4) Paul knew how, when, and to whom to delegate responsibilities. He needed to enlist the help of others, to be sure, but he also trusted their help and complimented those who gave it.

    (5) Paul observed protocol, doing what he sensed to be right at the right time and in the right way.

    (6) Paul had goals and sought to reach them through strategic means: prayer, planning, and the help of others, providing honest and honorable incentives to those who assisted him. The Letter to Philemon well illustrates this.

    (7) Paul's leadership was characterized by the servant-leader attitude. He was not self-centered. He aspired to live what Martin Buber referred to in another connection as an “unexalted life.”21 “Christ will be exlated now as always in my body, whether by life or by death” (Phil 1:20b).

     

    <Page 904 Ends><Page 905 Begins>

     These were some of the traits Paul's circle of friends were familiar with as they followed his lead. Small wonder, then, that he remained so influential and that his coterie of workers remained so loyal. Paul had that personal “power” about which Ralph Waldo Emerson commented in one of his essays: “Who shall set a limit to the influence of a human being? There are [leaders], who, by their sympathetic attractions, carry nations with them, and lead the activity of the human race.”222323 While each of us has particular gifts with which to further the cause of Jesus Christ, we, too, would do well to follow Paul's lead as appropriate to our circumstances.

     

    <Page 905 Ends><Page 906 Begins>

     

    <Page 906 Ends><Page 907 Begins>

  • Brother Mark
    Brother Mark Member Posts: 945 ✭✭

    Perhaps I am simply beating a dead horse

    Let me quickly add a hearty AMEN to your epiphany!  

    "I read dead people..."

  • Dan Francis
    Dan Francis Member Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭

    Perhaps I am simply beating a dead horse

    Let me quickly add a hearty AMEN to your epiphany!  

    I don't give up that easily, besides our God is a God of resurrection, from our Lord, to Lazarus and many other resuscitated ones.

    -dan

  • Dan Francis
    Dan Francis Member Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭


    Thought i would do the same for Obadiah, also being a very short book.

    THE BOOK OF OBADIAH

    INTRODUCTION, COMMENTARY, AND REFLECTIONS

    BY

    SAMUEL PAGÇN

     

     

    <Page 433 Ends><Page 435 Begins>

     

    THE BOOK OF

    OBADIAH

    INTRODUCTION

    THE BOOK

    The book of the prophet Obadiah—the shortest in the Old Testament—presents a clear message of judgment against the people of Edom. It begins with the word “vision” (v. 1), which reveals the prophetic intent, the tone of the message, and the nature of the literature, and it ends with an affirmation of the kingdom and sovereignty of God, a word of hope (v. 21). The prophet elaborates on earlier traditions—e.g., the day of the Lord—and applies them to his immediate historical situation (the Israelite community of Jerusalem), and then to the exile of the people into Babylonia.

    Obadiah is one of the least read prophetic writings in the Bible. It is a short book and does not provide much information about the author and the historical setting in which it was written. Moreover, at the literary level, a section of the message of Obadiah (vv. 1b-6) is similar to Jeremiah 49.

    The book of Obadiah belongs to a type of literature that heralds God’s judgment to come upon the nations near Israel. These prophecies may have been preserved by the cultic circles in Jerusalem. The oracles of judgment against the nations constitute an important element in the biblical prophetic literature. Prophecies against Edom are also found in Isaiah (21:11-12), Jeremiah (49:7-22), Ezekiel (25:12-14), Amos (1:11-12), and Malachi (1:2-5; see also Isa 11:14; Jer 25:21; Lam 4:21; Joel 4:19).

    In the Hebrew canon, the book of Obadiah is fourth in order among the minor prophets, between Amos and Jonah. Perhaps this order stems from the fact that Obadiah and Amos

     

     

    <Page 435 Ends><Page 436 Begins>

    have similar themes: both prophets emphasize the day of the Lord. It is important to point out, moreover, that thematic connections are also found with the book of Joel; the proclamation of the day of the Lord presented in Joel 3:2, 14 is included in Amos 9:11-12 and emerges again in Obadiah 15a-21. Some scholars think that Obadiah 1-14 is a commentary on Joel 3:19, and Obadiah 15-21 on Amos 9:12.

    In most Septuagint manuscripts, the longer books (Hosea, Amos, Micah) are followed by shorter ones (Joel, Obadiah, Jonah). Such an ordering may reflect a criterion for order based on a book’s length. Nonetheless, the length of Obadiah does not seem to be the main reason for placing it between Joel and Jonah in the Septuagint. Instead, the thematic relationship between Joel 3 and Obadiah and the interest in chronology manifested by the translators of the Septuagint were probably more important factors in establishing that order.1

    It is difficult to determine precisely the date the book was written, since the historical information it provides is scant. Some scholars have proposed the ninth century BCE, referring to the Edomite rebellion against Joram (2 Kgs 8:20-22). Others, however, have placed the composition of the book at a much later date, at the middle of the fifth century BCE, after the exile of the people of Israel to Babylonia, during the Edomite occupation of the Negev.2

    Nevertheless, historical, literary, and theological analysis of the book suggests the exilic period, particularly the years immediately following the crisis in Jerusalem (687/686 BCE), as the most probable date of the composition of Obadiah. Edom’s attitude to the destruction of Jerusalem and the exile of Judahites helps to illumine Obadiah’s historical context. Moreover, during that same period—at the beginning of the sixth century BCE—a literature with similar theological and literary tendencies developed (cf. Ps 137:7; Lam 4:18-22; Ezek 25:12-14; 31:1-15). These writings manifest resentment against the Edomites similar to that presented in the book of Obadiah. That anti-Edomite perspective also occurs in subsequent works. For example in 1 Ezra 4:45, the Edomites are identified as the ones who set fire to the Jerusalem Temple, when the Jews were devastated by the Chaldeans.

    THE PROPHET

    There is not much information about the prophet Obadiah. A tradition included in the Babylonian Talmud3 identifies him as the servant of Ahab (1 Kgs 18:3-16), allied with Elijah and the protector of the prophets of the Lord (Jerome knew this tradition). Nevertheless, it is difficult to imagine an official of the king in the ninth century BCE who prophesied exclusively concerning relations between Judah and Edom three centuries later. Furthermore, there is no historical basis for equating the two characters. This tradition probably stemmed from the interest, attested in the Talmud, of identifying the author of

     

     

    <Page 436 Ends><Page 437 Begins>

    each book of the Bible, along with the fact that very little information on this small prophetic book was available.

    The Masoretic Text vocalized the name of the prophet Obadiah as hydb[ ((obadyâ, “worshiper of Yahweh”; the Septuagint used Abdiou (Abdiou); and the Vulgate rendered the name as Abdias, “servant of Yahweh.” These variants in pronunciation produce alternate ways of understanding the same name. Some scholars have thought that the name “Abdias,” beyond identifying a person, is symbolic. However, in ancient Israel, the name was fairly common. At least twelve people with that name are mentioned in the Old Testament; moreover, Obed, one of the variants of “Obadiah,” is applied to six additional persons, including the grandfather of King David (Ruth 4:21-22; Matt 1:5).

    Obadiah was a prophet of Yahweh. The prophet probably lived during the sixth century BCE, delivered his message in Jerusalem, and had at least some religious or cultic training. He was familiar with the prophetic traditions of judgment against the nations and was particularly versed in the anti-Edomite language, as seen in the similarities and parallels with Jeremiah 40; Ezek 25:12-14; Joel 1:15; 2:5, 32; 3:3, 17; and Amos 9:12. The style of Obadiah’s oracles demonstrates his great communicative ability and literary skill. Perhaps, like Amos (Amos 7:10-15), he was not a professional prophet, but was called by God for a specific task.

    The theme of the lordship of Yahweh (v. 21) perhaps echoes the enthronement psalms (Psalms 47; 93; 96–99), which made a prominent contribution to the worship liturgy in the Temple. The historical focus of the book (vv. 11-16) implies that it reflects the political relationship between Judah and Edom, after the catastrophe of 587/586 BCE and Israel’s exile into Babylonia. Obadiah may have witnessed the destruction of Jerusalem and the capture of the people of Judah.

    JUDAH AND EDOM

    The territory of Edom is located to the south of the Dead Sea and is surrounded by deserts to the east and the south. To the west is a mountainous region that extends south to the Gulf of Aqaba. To the north, the Zered stream separated Edom and Moab. This small territory measured approximately seventy miles north to south and fifteen miles east to west. A characteristic of the region is the reddish color of its rocks and mountains; that geological trait may explain its name: !wda ( )adôm) signifies this red region.

    The Edomites arrived and settled that region around the year 1300 BCE, sometime before the Israelites arrived in Canaan. The history of the relations between these peoples is characterized by animosity and hostility. Edom is regularly included in the catalogue of judgment oracles against the nations that surround Israel.4

    Some passages of the OT allude to the fraternal relationship between Israel and Edom; they are identified as “brother” peoples (Genesis 25; 27; 36; Num 20:14-21; Deut 2:4-8;

     

     

    <Page 437 Ends><Page 438 Begins>

    23:7; Jer 49:7-11; Amos 1:11-12; Mal 1:2-4). Two fundamental conclusions can be drawn from these texts: First, the term “brothers” does not always connote a bond of friendship or camaraderie between peoples. Second, the fraternal relationship between Israel and Edom stems from complex events in the histories of these nations.5 The struggle between the twins in Rebekah’s womb (Genesis 25) symbolizes such enmity and hostility between Israel and Edom.

    The people of Israel and Edom have displayed great mutual hostility throughout the ages. According to the narrative in Num 20:14-21, the Israelites, on their journey from Egypt to the promised land, requested permission from the king of Edom to pass through that territory, but he refused them permission. That disdainful attitude marked the beginning of intense enmity between the two nations. The resentment reached its peak when Jerusalem was captured by the Babylonians in 587/586 BCE. The Edomites may have joined in the destruction and helped the plunderers of Jerusalem (Ps 137:7). Moreover, the Edomites helped to capture fugitives who had fled from Judah (Obad 14). Because of the lack of solidarity with the neighboring people of Israel, God is determined to punish Edom.

    The difficulties and conflicts between the two peoples were evident from at least the time of King David (2 Sam 8:13-14), and possibly even from the time of King Saul, when Edom was listed among Israel’s enemies (1 Sam 14:47). This history of enmity continued throughout the monarchic period to the fall of Judah and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians (2 Kings 25; Obad 11-14).6

    During the exile and, subsequently, during the Persian period, neither of these peoples was in a political or military position to manifest resentment or conflict. Judah was a minor district in the Persian provincial system, whereas Edom, distant from the main events of the political powers of that day, experienced pressures from Arab groups that were attempting to take possession of its lands.

    After the Babylonian exile, a group of Edomites moved to the south of Palestine to protect itself from the Nabataean Arab groups in the area that was later known as Idumaea, a word that derives from “Edom.” Herod the Great was known as an Idumean, a term that reflects the hostility of the Jews toward the Edomites and their resentment toward Herod.

    LITERARY STRUCTURE

    One theory concerning the structure of the book divides the work into two major sections: (1) vv. 1-4, 15b and (2) vv. 15a, 16-21. This theory reflects the thematic and stylistic differences between these two sections. The first part refers to specific historical problems: the destruction of Jerusalem in the year 587/586 BCE and the attitude of the Edomites concerning that crisis. The rest of the work emphasizes eschatological issues related to God’s judgment: the coming of the day of the Lord.

     

     

    <Page 438 Ends><Page 439 Begins>

     

    According to the scholars who propose this structure, the book portrays a transition from history to eschatology. Moreover, v. 16 presents an abrupt change in the target audience; the first part of the message is addressed to Edom, the second to Judah. Moreover, the second part of the book has been divided into several sections that reveal stylistic differences: v. 15a, vv. 16-18, and vv. 19-21.

    A second theory for explaining the literary and stylistic complexities of the book of Obadiah also divides the work into two sections, but recognizes only vv. 1-18 as original to the prophet. Verses 19-21 were added later to emphasize eschatological hope. Some scholars have identified, in the first section of the book, oracles of the prophet that were subsequently compiled and edited to form the book.

    Another theory attempts to explain the book as essentially one literary unit. The author developed his message from ideas and themes of numerous oracles spoken earlier against the nations and preserved in Jerusalem and incorporated into Obadiah’s prophecy. Obadiah formulated his message in the light of Jerusalem’s destruction, the exile, and the reaction of the Edomites during the 587/586 catastrophe.

    This commentary divides the book into three major sections: (1) the proclamation of judgment against Edom (vv. 2-9); (2) the indictment and reasons for judgment (vv. 10-14, 15b); and (3) the announcement of the day of the Lord (vv. 15a, 16-21).

    By studying the book of Obadiah as a literary unit, one can discover several important elements that are intimately related. There is a gradual progression in the development of the ideas: from the proclamation of judgment on Edom to the description of its sins during Judah’s crisis and finally to the general theme of the day of the Lord with respect to the nations and the survival of a remnant of God’s people. Nevertheless, the primary theme is God’s judgment against Edom. God, according to the message of the prophet, is the Lord of the earth and will see to it that the territory of Judah is returned to God’s people.

    From a structural and thematic standpoint, the book may also be studied as a set of six short poems in chiastic form. This analysis underscores the theological importance of the work.7 The chiastic structure, which presents the themes of the poem in parallel form, takes the shape ABCA´B´C´, with the following themes:

     

    A vv. 1-4 God will humble Edom

    B vv. 5-7 Edom will be attacked and abandoned by its allies

    C vv. 8-11 Edom is judged for remaining passive during the slaughter 

        of its brothers and sisters

    C´ vv. 12-14 Edom should not have rejoiced at the defeat of Judah and 

        should not have plundered and delivered up the survivors 

        of the Jerusalem catastrophe

    B´ vv. 15-18 God’s people will return to rule on Mount Zion

    A´ vv. 19-21 God will save God’s people

     

     

    <Page 439 Ends><Page 440 Begins>

     

    The main emphasis occurs at the center of the book (sections C and C´): Edom will be judged for its attitude against God’s people in their time of crisis and need.

    OBADIAH’S RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PROPHETS

    This commentary’s analysis of the literary unity of the book does not overlook its diverse components and influences from oral and written sources. Perhaps the material used by Obadiah is of ritual or liturgical origin; however, the range of the prophet’s thematic and literary resources is difficult to determine.

    The relationship between Obadiah and other prophets, particularly Jeremiah, has been the focus of much study and research.8 Specifically, we can identify similarities between Obad 1-6 and Jeremiah 49. According to some scholars, Obadiah used the oracles of Jeremiah to formulate his own prophetic proclamation. Others believe that the book of Jeremiah includes the material that had been prepared by Obadiah. Both points of view claim that one of the two authors relied on the material of the other.

    A better explanation may be that both works rely on prophetic material that already existed in cultic and prophetic circles in Jerusalem. Stylistic and thematic analysis of both works reveals literary, textual, and thematic continuity, which may be explained on the basis of that hypothesis.9

     

          1—Parallels:            2—Similarities: 

    Obadiah     Jeremiah Obadiah         Jeremiah

      1a              49:7      8                49:7

      1b-4       49:14-16      9               49:22

      5-6         49:9-10a     16              49:12

     

    Study of Obadiah, moreover, reveals thematic and literary contact with other prophetic books, particularly with Joel, Amos, and Ezekiel. The parallels and similarities again underscore the importance of prophetic material against other nations, which circulated among the prophetic and cultic groups in Jerusalem. The brief oracle against Edom included in Ezek 25:12-14 and the theme of the day of the Lord of Amos 9:12 are clear examples. Obadiah also bears strong similarities to the book of Joel:

     

    Obadiah Joel

      11 3:3

      15 1:15

      16 3:17

      18 2:5

      21 2:32

     

     

    <Page 440 Ends><Page 441 Begins>

    Such comparisons between Obadiah and Jeremiah and Joel indicate that these prophets used oral or written sources of prophetic oracles against Edom for developing their own message.

    THEOLOGY

    The theology of the book of Obadiah is intimately related to the historical reality that characterized the prophet’s ministry. After the triumph of the Babylonian armies over Judah and Jerusalem, the citizens were left demoralized and humiliated as they had seen their country devastated, national institutions dismantled, and many of their leaders deported (2 Kgs 2:5). The prophet’s theology had to take into consideration the political, social, and spiritual condition of the people, while appropriately responding to the theological expectations of the community. After the exile, the community of Judah and Jerusalem struggled to survive, to reorganize national life, and to comprehend the theological implications of the events that had befallen them.

    The message of Obadiah is judgment for Edom and hope for the Yahwistic community. Although the work is not a systematic theological treatise and instead the prophetic word in the face of a national crisis,10 one may identify four important themes.

    Divine Justice. After the devastation of Jerusalem in 587/586 BCE, a divine manifestation of judgment against Edom was needed because of its part in Judah’s catastrophe.

    To balance the theological crisis created by the destruction of Jerusalem, the religious and political center of the Yahwistic community, Obadiah used and developed a theology of divine justice. God would intervene and punish those who had been involved in the plunder of Jerusalem: Edom. In vv. 2-9, Edom’s destruction is announced. In vv. 10-14, the nature of Edom’s crimes is developed. Verse 15b emphasizes the punishment warranted by Edom’s betrayal of Judah and offense against God.

    The Day of the Lord. Tied to the theme of God’s justice is the theme of the day of the Lord. But this theme is also linked to the idea of holy war—the belief that God is able and willing to intervene to defeat decisively the enemies of God’s people. The day of the Lord also implies the judgment and destruction of those enemies as well as victory and salvation for God’s people.

    The book of Lamentations identifies two important phases in the manifestation of the day of the Lord (Lam 1:21; 2:21-22) during the crisis of 587/586 BCE. The first phase takes place during the fall of Jerusalem, the destruction of the Temple, and the devastation of the Judahite state. The second phase involves the reaction of Judah’s enemies to the slaughter and affliction of the people. Obadiah may have taken that double motif from the book of Lamentations and incorporated it into his message against Edom. The destruction of Edom will result from a new manifestation of the day of the Lord: first, because the Edomites had been accomplices to the Babylonians’ intervention against Judah and, second,

     

     

    <Page 441 Ends><Page 442 Begins>

    because they had taken advantage of the crisis to plunder and destroy the city. The destruction of Edom is the logical result of the just actions of a God who responds to the needs of people and does not allow injustice to reign. The people of Judah had received the divine penalty for their sins and actions in violation of the covenant. The book of Obadiah presents the theology of the day of the Lord and the manifestation of divine judgment, now applied to the people of Edom.

    The Lord of History. The prophet’s theology underscores the ability of the God of Israel to intervene in history and to vent the divine furor against the people of Edom. In ancient days, when nations would go to war, they believed their gods would be present in battle. According to that theology, the people of Judah might have been dismayed and frustrated at a God who was not able to defeat the gods of the Babylonians and the Edomites.

    Obadiah’s theology affirms that the God of Israel was not defeated and will manifest power in history so as to judge the people who have taken advantage of Judah’s defeat in order to plunder it and take over its territory. The affirmation that the Lord is God over history runs counter to the Edomites’ view of themselves. The destruction of Edom will not be a chance event but the result of the righteous action of the God of history.

    The Kingdom of the Lord. The message of Obadiah ends with a statement concerning the people’s future. After the national catastrophe, the future of the Jewish community will be radically transformed. The vindication of the people will be a reality, thanks to divine intervention that will restore the national borders and establish a theocracy in the world (vv. 19-20). Mount Zion will be reestablished as the capital of a renewed and liberated people. The book culminates with an ardent affirmation of faith and hope: “the kingdom shall be the LORD’s” (v. 21).

    THE TEXT OF THE BOOK

    The Hebrew text of the book of Obadiah has been quite well preserved. Scholars frequently use the parallel passage of Jeremiah 49 to revise and amend difficult parts of Obad 1-5. That process of revision and textual amendment, however, must be made without violating the literary integrity of either document (see vv. 19-20). The Septuagint can also be of great assistance in studying the text of Obadiah; nonetheless, the Greek vocalization of poetic portions of the Masoretic Text should be used with careful critical judgment.11

    Textual corrections that should be made to the book include changing the word wcpjn (nehupZu; “ransacked,” NIV; “pillaged,” NRSV) from the plural to the singular (v. 6); revocalizing the Hebrew text, in accordance with the ancient versions, to clarify the sense of the text in vv. 7, 13, 17, 21; and, in v. 20, interpreting a strange expression that has been added to the original text. Some scholars maintain that in several places the text has suffered transpositions during the process of textual transmission (e.g., v. 15). Generally,

     

     

    <Page 442 Ends><Page 443 Begins>

    it is believed that the topographical and geographical references in vv. 19-20 were added at an early stage of the text’s history.12 In this evaluation and analysis of the structure and style of the work, the text’s integrity is respected so as to avoid inappropriate amendments and transpositions.

    BIBLIOGRAPHY

    Allen, Leslie C. The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, and Micah. NICOT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976. Excellent overall basic commentary.

    Clark, David, and Norm Mundhenk. A Translator’s Handbook on the Books of Obadiah and Micah. New York: United Bible Societies, 1982. Of special interest to those who know Hebrew.

    Coggins, R. J., and S. P. Re’emi. Israel Among the Nations: Nahum, Obadiah, Esther. ITC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985. Commentary with a theological interest.

    Limburg, James. Hosea–Micah. Interpretation. Atlanta: John Knox, 1988. A commentary oriented to the task of preaching.

    Mason, R. Micah, Nahum, Obadiah. Sheffield: JSOT, 1991. Up-to-date, concise assessment of issues raised by Obadiah.

    Myers, J. “Edom and Judah in the Sixth-Fifth Centuries B.C.” In Near Eastern Studies in Honor of William Foxwell Albright. Edited by H. Goedicke. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1971. Provides important historical information.

    Snyman, S. D. “Cohesion in the Book of Obadiah,” ZAW 101 (1989) 59-71. An article that focuses on the issue of literary unity.

    Watts, J. D. W. Obadiah: A Critical Exegetical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969. A brief but useful study.

    Wolff, Hans Walter. Obadiah and Jonah: A Commentary. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1986. A definitive commentary, with focus on critical issues.

    OUTLINE OF OBADIAH

    I. Obadiah 1, Heading and Introduction

    II. Obadiah 2-9, Judgment Against Edom

    III. Obadiah 10-14, 15b, Crimes of Edom

    IV. Obadiah 15a, 16-21, Edom on the Day of the Lord

     

     

    <Page 443 Ends><Page 444 Begins>

     

    OBADIAH 1

    HEADING AND INTRODUCTION

    Link to:  

    COMMENTARY

    The introduction of the book of Obadiah is brief. It provides no details concerning the prophet’s or his ancestors’ home; neither does it indicate the date of his message. The content of the book is presented in the form of prophetic oracles, although the title or heading of the book reads “The Vision of Obadiah.” The basic meaning of v. 1 is that God has given to Obadiah a message that must be communicated to the people.

    The Hebrew word for “vision” (@wzj hazôn) suggests that Obadiah may have received his message while in some kind of a trance.13 The literary unity of vv. 1-14, 15a is evident, since these verses deal solely with Edom’s sin, blame, and judgment. This unity is also conveyed through the literary style; in this section, the prophet refers to Edom using the second-person singular “you.”

    God is the foundation of the message of the prophet Obadiah (v. 1b).14 The expressions “Lord GOD” and “Sovereign LORD” represent the Hebrew phrase hwhy ynda ()adonAy YHWH ), two words that often appear together in the OT.15

    The main theme of Obadiah’s message is judgment on the nation of Edom. According to the biblical accounts, the Edomites were descendants of Esau, Jacob’s twin brother (Gen 25:19-26, 36; see also Introduction, “Judah and Edom”).

    Verse 1 presents an image of the divine council—i.e., a messenger has been sent from that body. In the OT, God is sometimes depicted as a king. One characteristic of ancient Near Eastern monarchs is that they had courts and councils, groups of people who carried out his orders and advised the king. That image was often used in prophetic circles to describe the setting in which the divine revelations came to the prophet (cf. 1 Kgs 22:19-23). According to Obadiah, the divine council had met and had decided to go to battle against Edom. God, in council, has announced an impending judgment on the people of Edom (see Isa 34:5-15; 63:1-6; Ezek 25:12-14; 35:1-15; Amos 1:11-12; Mal 1:2-4).

    The book does not clearly indicate the audience to whom Obadiah addressed his message. Much of the prophecy refers to and describes the judgment of the Edomites; the message, however, is presented to the people of Israel, the community of Judea, and not to Edom.

    The translations of v. 1b in the NRSV and the NIV offer some stylistic differences, but both present the same essential information: The messenger of God must be sent before those people can hear the message. The Lord is identified both as the source of Obadiah’s message and the one who

     

     

    <Page 444 Ends><Page 445 Begins>

    sends the messenger. The image of the messenger may allude to a representative of Judah who visited the neighboring nations and urged them to form a military alliance against Edom. The meaning of the message is, “Get ready! Let us go to war against Edom.” The modern translations express the message as an imperative: “Let us go to war against Edom” (author’s trans.).

    The prophet apparently realizes that the Lord has commissioned him to proclaim a message of judgment: “We have heard a report.” Obadiah speaks to the people of Judah using the plural subject “we” to indicate that both the community and the prophet have received the message and must respond to God’s revelation. In so doing, the prophet identifies with the everyday realities of the people.

     

     

    <Page 445 Ends><Page 446 Begins>

     

    OBADIAH 2-9

    JUDGMENT AGAINST EDOM

    Link to:  

    COMMENTARY

    This initial section of Obadiah’s utterance may be divided into four basic units or paragraphs. The first paragraph (vv. 2-4) announces the fall of Edom; these verses are similar to Jer 49:14-16. The second paragraph (vv. 5-6) clearly and vividly describes the severity of the punishment; this section is similar to Jer 49:9-10. The third paragraph (v. 7) alludes to the betrayal

     

     

    <Page 446 Ends><Page 447 Begins>

    of allies and friends of Israel; this verse also chides Edom for its lack of intelligence or wisdom. The fourth paragraph (vv. 8-9) points up the absoluteness, decisiveness, and completeness of the punishment proclaimed against the nation of Edom.

    Verses 2-4, The Fall of Edom. Verse 2. The prophetic message is structured as if it were being addressed directly to the Edomites. This strategy lets the people of Israel know that God is about to punish their traditional enemies.

    The Hebrew phrase translated in this text as “I will surely make you least [“small,” NIV] among the nations” (NRSV) generally conveys a completed or past idea, particularly in prose texts. In prophetic poetry, however, this verbal form (sometimes known as prophetic perfect) usually refers to the future; the prophet writes about future events as if they have already happened. (It is not always easy to ascertain whether this verb form refers to the past or actually alludes to future events; hence the ambiguity about the situation in vv. 2-7.) Since v. 1 alluded to the enemies who are about to attack Edom, it is better to present the defeat as an event yet to occur. Moreover, since other verbs of this passage refer clearly to the future, it is best to understand all of these verbs as referring to a future time.

    The word @fq (qAton; NIV, “small”; NRSV, “least”) functions as figurative language. It refers not only to the size of the nation, but also to its might, power, and authority.

    At the end of v. 2, the phrase “you shall be . . . despised” conveys the idea that Edom will be greatly humiliated. This notion reveals, moreover, the attitude of Israel toward its enemies.

    Verse 3. The statement “Your proud heart has deceived you” (^ayvh ^bl @wdz sudôn libbukA hissi)kA) translates literally the Hebrew text. The heart connotes the seat of emotions, as has been maintained in the translations. The Edomites were excessively proud of their military might, thinking they could not be defeated. Ironically, it was this sense of self-sufficiency that defeated them.

    The expression “live in the clefts of the rock” may indicate the basis of the Edomites’ pride; it may also refer to their capital, Sela. In Hebrew, the word [ls (sela() means “rock.”16 The play on the meaning of the two words cannot be reproduced in English. The city was situated on a plain among high mountains; it was accessible from only one direction. The town of Sela was like a fortress. This physical, geographical peculiarity caused the Edomites to feel sheltered, safe, and proud.

    The expression “you say in your heart,” which has been translated also as “you say to yourself,” intimates the perception the Edomites had of themselves. Confident because their homes were high on the mountains, the Edomites would rhetorically ask: “Who will bring me down to the ground?” The question attests the Edomites’ arrogance. The Edomites thought they were so strong that no one could bring them down, but God, in fact, easily defeated them.

    Verse 4. This verse provides the prophet’s answer to Edom’s pride: “Though you soar . . . I will bring you down.” (The issue of pride is often stressed in the prophetic oracles against the nations; see Isa 10:5-15; Jer 50:31-32). Verse 4 offers two images: a high-flying eagle and the eagle’s nest. The nest is situated in a hidden and inaccessible place. But it is difficult to determine whether the notions of flying high as eagles and building a nest in an inaccessible place elaborate on the same idea. The second part of the verse, which speaks of making a nest among the stars, constitutes a hyperbole, a figure of speech that makes its point through exaggeration.

    The imagery of eagles may connote the ability of these birds to fly very high and build their nests in secluded places. But it may also allude to their legendary size and the fact that they are birds of prey. The disloyal attitude Edom displayed in Israel’s hour of crisis can be compared to the behavior of eagles (v. 13 condemns Edom for plundering the people of Israel).

    The final phrase of the verse, “says [or declares] the LORD,” affirms that the Lord is the one who has spoken. This phrase indicates that the people are not hearing Obadiah’s words but the message of the Lord.

    Verses 5-6, Total Destruction. Verses 5-9 return to the message proclaimed in vv. 2-4: God is going to punish Edom. Unlike vv. 2-4, where God is the agent, now God’s punishment will be meted out by Edom’s former allies and friends.

    The structure of v. 5 is complex.17 The text

     

     

    <Page 447 Ends><Page 448 Begins>

    presents two images and comparisons: One speaks of two thieves, the other of people who harvest grapes. These ideas are parallel and complement each other. Each conveys the main thrust of the verse: There will be partial rather than absolute destruction.

    Two problems complicate an understanding of the verse. First, the subjects of the two images are practically synonymous: “thieves” and “plunderers” or “robbers.” Second, the first clause of the text is separated from the second by an exclamation that is thematically related more closely to v. 6 than it is to v. 5: “How you have been destroyed!”

    To overcome these difficulties in understanding posed by this text, the Good News Bible (GNB) translation has restructured the passage in three steps. First, it has translated the exclamation “How you have been destroyed!” (NRSV) as “But your enemies have wiped you out completely” (GNB) and has placed it at the end of the verse; in this way, the idea of destruction in vv. 5-6 is more clearly tied in to the unit.18 Second, in the first part of the verse the two words translated as “thieves” and “plunderers” in the NRSV have been incorporated into a single clause: “When thieves . . . they always . . . ” (GNB). Third, the GNB conveys the meaning of this verse through affirmations rather than rhetorical questions.

    This kind of restructuring not only simplifies the structure of the verse, but it also makes it easier to follow the progression of the prophet’s ideas. The two ideas that are compared follow each other without interruption, and the contrast between them and the situation of Edom is set forth by the phrase “But your enemies. . . . ”

    When a nation suffers a military defeat, usually the destruction is partial. This will not be the case with Edom, which will experience a much more severe and radical destruction. That idea is communicated by the expression “Oh, what a disaster awaits you.” Just as Edom’s pride is highlighted in vv. 3 and 4, so also v. 5 depicts its rigorous and far-reaching destruction.

    In the first line of v. 5, the word “night” is employed because it is the setting and the time in which the Israelites conceived of thieves’ breaking in and stealing. Still, the verse emphasizes not the time the thieves arrive, but their stealthy, aggressive manner.

    The expression “would they not steal only what they want?” implies that thieves leave something behind. And the expression “would they not leave gleanings?” may be based on the fact that the grape harvesters neither see nor are able to reach all the grapes on the vines. For Israel, however, the practice of leaving behind a portion of the produce was deliberate. According to Lev 19:11, anyone reaping a harvest should leave some in the field for the poor.

    The Hebrew verb htymdn (nidmêtâ), which has been translated as “have been destroyed,” may be another example of the prophetic perfect (see also the verbs in v. 6 and the first three verbs of v. 7). The change from future to past tense in the verbs in NRSV and NIV (vv. 5-7) may obscure the meaning.

    According to Gen 36:1, 8, 19, Esau is the forebear of the nation of Edom. In Hebrew, as in the NRSV and the NIV translations, this verse concerning Edom is presented as an exclamation in the third-person singular. The text addresses Edom in the second person throughout the rest of vv. 2-7. The Hebrew text in Obad 6 employs two clauses to convey the basic idea that Edom will be plundered. In v. 6b, the NRSV reads “his treasures searched out,” and in v. 6a, “How Esau has been pillaged.” Many of the people’s treasures may have been hidden away in the numerous caves located in the rocky fortress of Edom. This text can also be rendered “your treasures have been looted”; the “treasures” perhaps include items of trade and luxury.

    Verse 7, Betrayal of Allies. This verse further develops the theme of Edom’s destruction. The prophet describes the divine judgment through three basic ideas: “deceived” by allies, antagonism from “confederates” or “friends,” and betrayal by “those who ate your bread.” The theme of betrayal by allies and against covenants recurs (see vv. 1, 3-4).

    The verb tenses in v. 7 require careful examination. Of the four verbs used in the text, three are in prophetic perfect; the fourth is in the imperfect (see Commentary on v. 2). The verse may be translated in the future tense, as the NIV does, to underscore the future implications of the prophet’s message.

     

     

    <Page 448 Ends><Page 449 Begins>

     

    Divine judgment focuses on the human element in this unit. The “confederates” must be distinguished from the enemies; the former are nations that had promised to help Edom in times of trouble. The expression wjlv (silluhûkA), translated “they have driven you” or “will force you,” derives from the verb whose basic meaning is “send” (jlv sAlah), although in this text it may mean “escort” or “lead.” The idea is that Edom’s former allies deceived the Edomites and expelled them from their own lands. The prophet contrasts this idea with the treatment of the people of Judah by the Edomites (v. 14).

    In the Hebrew text, the first two lines have the same subject, which occurs in the second clause: “your allies.” To facilitate the understanding of the passage, the NRSV and the NIV have restructured the text, identifying the subject of the verse in the first line.

    In ancient times, alliances or covenants between individuals or peoples were considered sacred; to break a covenant was abominable; moreover, the covenant breaker was severely penalized (see Ps 55:20; Amos 1:9). In v. 7 the prophet points out the nature of Edom’s destruction and judgment. The hope and security implied in international alliances would not suffice to halt the approaching divine judgment, because Edom had been unfaithful to an alliance or covenant with Judah.

    The third line of the verse is difficult to understand and to translate. It may allude to the lack of solidarity and the grave offense of withholding hospitality. According to ancient Near Eastern customs, hospitality was a responsibility and obligation that created strong ties of solidarity and loyalty (Ps 41:9).19 In the Hebrew text, the subject of the third line literally means “your bread” (^mjl lahmukA). Since this term is thematically related to the preceding idea, the NRSV has rendered it as “those who ate your bread”—that is, “your close friends.” Once again, the nature of Edom’s treachery is accentuated.

    The final portion of the verse reproaches Edom for its lack of discernment and intelligence. Divine judgment will startle Edom. The nation will fall prey to its own false sense of safety and confidence. Edomites apparently refuse to believe that they could be betrayed.

    Verses 8-9, Defeat of the Sages and Warriors. These verses contain the oracle that concludes this section (vv. 5-9). Edom’s punishment will be conclusive and absolute. The expression “says the LORD” or “declares the LORD” (v. 8), which marks a prophetic oracle, concludes vv. 1-4 and also begins vv. 5-9. In these latter verses, Edom’s wisdom and intelligence (v. 8), as well as its military power (v. 9), are criticized.

    Throughout vv. 1b-9, divine and human actions are intimately related. In vv. 8-9, “the nations” (cf. v. 1b), “thieves” and “plunderers” (v. 5), and “your allies” (v. 7) are instruments of the ire of the Lord. According to the text, Edom’s catastrophe is the result of divine intervention through God’s agents.

    One important element in the holy war theology is that God is the secret ally who brings about confusion among the enemy forces. Such confusion affects the enemy’s morale and sense of security (Exod 23:27; Deut 7:23; Josh 10:10). “The wise men” and “men of understanding” in Edom will fearfully tremble when God pours out judgment and wrath. Destruction will be total and absolute.

    The fate of Teman as a center of wisdom may stem from its geographical position in the Middle East. This important Edomite town held a privileged position in intermediate trade (v. 9). The caravans and merchants from the East used to bring merchandise and folklore to Teman. In the book of Job, Eliphaz, who represents a type of wisdom severely criticized in the work, is from Teman (Job 2:11; cf. Jer 49:7). According to Obadiah’s message, Edom’s national wisdom is exemplified in its military capacity. The parallelism between Edom and “Mount Esau” (vv. 9, 19, 21) is found only in the book of Obadiah. Teman poetically refers to Edom.

    The NIV’s rhetorical questions in v. 8 have been translated as affirmative statements in the NRSV. The theme of the day of the Lord, inferred in the phrases “on that day,” usually allude to the day of final judgment. It is used here, however, to refer to Edom’s punishment. (See Reflections at vv. 15a, 16-21.)

     

     

    <Page 449 Ends><Page 450 Begins>

     

    OBADIAH 10-14, 15b

    CRIMES OF EDOM

    Link to:  

     

     

    <Page 450 Ends><Page 451 Begins>

     

    COMMENTARY

    Verses Verses 10-14, 15b comprise a thematic and literary unit. Obadiah, speaking as the interpreter of the divine will, interrelates two themes of capital importance to his prophecy: violence and fraternity. Divine judgment results from Edom’s cruel and inhumane treatment of Judah. The text exposes Edom’s unjust, unfriendly attitude and proceeds to justify the divine intervention on the basis of those acts of fratricide.

    Verses 10-11, Lack of Solidarity. These verses introduce this unit and also relate vv. 1b-9 with this new section. The initial words of v. 10, “Because of the violence,” emphasize the judgment announced in the preceding section. Verse 11 describes the context in which Edom acted against Israel. The brotherly relationship mentioned in the text is based on the patriarchal accounts (Genesis 25–29; 32; additionally Deut 23:7 clearly states: “You shall not abhor any of the Edomites, for they are your kin” [NRSV; NIV, “brother” ]). Judah is expressly called Jacob (v. 10) to underscore the relationship. Even though the relationship between these peoples involved varying levels of hostility, their fraternity presupposes a moral obligation of solidarity that should not be ignored. The term “brother” is not to be taken literally. The Hebrew word conveys the notion of kinship as well as that of a covenant partner.20

    Edom’s violence—that is, its failure to respect the human rights of the Israelites—will be the reason for the destruction and humiliation that will befall the nation. Edom took advantage of Judah’s misfortune to vent its resentment and hostility toward the people and their king (see Introduction, “Judah and Edom”). In the prophet’s estimation, that act cannot go unpunished.

    In v. 11, The expression “You stood aside”/“you stood aloof” conveys the prophet’s harsh criticism of Edom’s inhumane behavior. This verse carries the heart of Obadiah’s charge. Edom acted as an enemy by allying itself with Judah’s invaders: “You too were like one of them.” The prophet clearly identifies some of the calamities Judah had experienced: “strangers carried off his wealth” and “foreigners entered his gates/ and cast lots for Jerusalem.” During the great catastrophe, Edomites took part in the plundering and violence against Judah. This description sets the stage for vv. 12-14, which present the day of divine judgment as a response to Edom’s behavior.

    Verses 12-14, 15b, The Day of the Lord. The main theme of these verses is the day of the Lord.21 The Hebrew term for “day” (!wy yôm ) appears eleven times in vv. 11-15. The repetition of “on the day” gives the text an extraordinary poetic strength, stressing the importance of this motif and emphasizing the gravity of the accusation. The “day of the Lord” theme is tied to the outpouring of divine judgment, particularly against the enemies of Israel. In vv. 12-14, the prophet plainly describes Edom’s behavior during the day of judgment, which is referred to as “the day . . . of his misfortune,” “of their ruin,” “of distress.”

    The specific “day” occurred in the year 587/586 BCE, when Nebuchadnezzar’s armies entered Jerusalem to conquer the city, destroy the Temple, and take the leaders of Judah into captivity in Babylon. That experience marks the beginning of the period called the exile (see Ps 137:7).

    The description of Edom’s arrogance and pride in the passage alludes to v. 3. Obadiah’s criticism, expressed in specific accusations against Edom, refers to historical events that occurred before the destruction of Jerusalem. This section also includes an extensive list of specific indictments against Edom. The expression “you should not have . . . ” marks Edom’s specific attitudes and actions against Judah: “gloated over your brother,” “rejoiced over the people of Judah,” “boasted,” “entered the gate of my people,” “joined in the gloating of Judah’s disaster,” “looted his goods,” “stood at the crossings,” and “handed over his survivors.” The repetitions, the parallelism, and the consistency of ideas enhance the literary and thematic unity of these verses.

    “The gate” (v. 13) is a symbol of God’s presence with the people (Pss 87:2; 9:14; 118:20).

     

     

    <Page 451 Ends><Page 452 Begins>

    Since the gates of the city were considered inviolable and secure, the act of entering through them symbolized defeat. The destruction of the gates, likewise, symbolizes God forsaking the people (Lam 4:12-13).

    Some poetic features of the text are impossible to reproduce in translations. The English versions of this verse, for instance, do not reflect the Hebrew wordplays on the original message; the English “calamity” translates the Hebrew word !dya ()êdAm), which is similar to Edom.

    The list of injustices enumerated in vv. 12-14 ends with Edom’s sentence: “As you have done, it shall be done to you” (v. 15 NRSV). This sentence concludes the indictments against Edom as well as the first part of Obadiah’s prophecy. (See Reflections at vv. 15a, 16-21.)

     

     

    <Page 452 Ends><Page 453 Begins>

     

    OBADIAH 15a, 16-21

    EDOM ON THE DAY OF THE LORD

    Link to:  

     

     

    <Page 453 Ends><Page 454 Begins>

     

    COMMENTARY

    The translation of v. 15 allows the literary structure of the book to be understood in at least two different ways. Some translations link v. 15 to vv. 10-14. In this way, the imminent judgment of God is presented, and the specific example of Edom’s punishment is underscored. Verse 15 is the climax of this unit. Another possibility is to begin the new literary and thematic unit with vv. 16-21. That would emphasize the divine judgment of the nations in a general way, and the case of Edom in particular. The NRSV divides the book into four units: vv. 1-4, vv. 5-9, vv. 10-16, vv. 17-21. The NIV makes only two fundamental divisions: vv. 1-14 and vv. 15-21. In my judgment it is important to take into consideration the continuities between vv. 10-14 and v. 15b and between vv. 16-21 and v. 15a. Possibly, due to some difficulty in the transmission of manuscripts, the clauses of v. 15 were transposed (see Introduction, “Literary Structure”).

    The final section of Obadiah’s prophecy (vv. 15a, 16-21) places the divine judgment of Edom in a broader eschatological perspective. The theme of the day of the Lord is given special attention in the climax of the message: God’s final victory will be manifested on behalf of the people of Judah.22 The conquest and destruction of Edom are presented as a sign of God’s judgment against that nation and grace for Israel. The historical events that provide the background for this section are the crimes committed by the Babylonian army during the destruction of Jerusalem.

    Verses 15a-16. The prophet begins his message by announcing judgment “against all the nations.” The word “day,” frequently employed in the previous section of Obadiah’s prophecy (vv. 12-14), continues and develops the thought of v. 8. While “the day” of vv. 12-14 refers to the specific historical event of the conquest of Jerusalem, vv. 8, 15 speak of the eschatological day of God’s final judgment. In this way, the prophet ties the historical moment of Babylonia’s triumph over Israel, with the day of divine judgment at some indeterminate future time.

    In contrast to the day of sorrow and defeat referred to in vv. 12-14, the new literary and thematic unit presents the day of victory, of vindication, and of rejoicing for the people of Judah. The final defeat of Edom serves as a preamble to the demise and destruction of the human powers that reject the divine power and sovereignty. The day of eschatological judgment is also the day of final victory for God’s people.23

    In v. 16, the idea of divine judgment is likened to a drunk person. The literary image of “drunk on my holy mountain” alludes to the outpouring of God’s wrath (Ps 75:8; Jer 25:15-29; Mark 14:36). The image also describes those who drink the bitter cup of divine judgment and are annihilated: “shall be as though they had never been.”

    The Hebrew verb htv (sAtâ, “to drink”) is used three times in v. 16 to convey the idea of drunkenness. This text may be related to two literary images. The first alludes to the drunken victory celebrations of the conquerors; ancient armies used to celebrate their victories by getting drunk on the alcoholic beverages they had taken as booty. The second literary image has to do with divine judgment, with the image portraying the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem.

    “My holy mountain” or “holy hill” refers to Mount Zion (v. 17), the section of Jerusalem included in the Temple area. “Zion” and “my holy mountain” often refer to all of Jerusalem, when the writer wishes to emphasize the city’s religious importance (2 Sam 5:7; Cant 2:6; Isa 1:8).

    Until v. 15b, the oracles are directed to the people of Edom; in v. 16, the message is addressed to Israel. The reference “as you drank” (second-person plural) is different from the allusions to Edom (vv. 2-15b), which were phrased in the second-person singular. Direct address to the people of Israel continues until v. 21.

    Verse 17. This verse offers a divine promise of restoration and deliverance. In contrast to the judgment of the nations, announced in v. 16, the prophet now reveals God’s purposes for the people. The future of Jerusalem is closely related to that of the nation of Israel. Worship in the Temple redounds in blessing for the whole land of Judah.

     

     

    <Page 454 Ends><Page 455 Begins>

    Such change in the future status of the city symbolized future prosperity for the country. The city will become a place of refuge, “But on Mount Zion will be deliverance” (NIV). The NRSV expresses that idea of salvation with the phrase “on Mount Zion there shall be those that escape.” The theme of salvation for a small group or a remnant is particularly prominent in the book of Isaiah; the name of one of the prophet’s children, “Shearjashub” (Isa 7:3), means “a remnant shall return.” The same idea of a remnant is found in Isa 4:2 and 10:20.24 According to v. 17, the temple mount will again be holy. Holiness in Hebrew thought involves the idea of separation or consecration for the purpose of fulfilling a specific function. Although it has ethical and moral implications, the substantial elements of the concept are (1) the state of separation to fulfill some definite purpose (Lev 2:3; 22:2) and (2) the rejection of anything that may hamper that state of separation (Isa 52:1).

    “The house of Jacob/ will possess its inheritance” refers to Israelites who will have an opportunity to claim their ancient territorial possessions. After the destruction of Jerusalem, the neighboring peoples took possession of Judah’s lands. The judgment against Edom will result in the restoration of land for the people of Judah.

    Verse 18. Some scholars connect vv. 17 and 21 for linguistic, thematic, and formal reasons. But this radical restructuring of the biblical text is unnecessary. Verse 18 continues the idea of salvation that began in the preceding verse; in addition, it uses the same phrases as v. 17, e.g., “house of Jacob.”25

    “House of Joseph” may be a poetic allusion to Israel—that is, to the remnant mentioned in v. 17. It may also imply the salvation of the entire people of Israel (Ps 77:15; Zech 10:6).

    The promise of the restoration of Judah continues with the language of fire and destruction in v. 18. While the preceding verses relate salvation to the city of Jerusalem, this verse describes that salvation in terms of the destruction of Edom, calling it the “house of Esau.” The prophet clearly and forcefully states that the enemies of Israel will be utterly destroyed: “There will be no survivors/ from the house of Esau.”

    The images of “fire” and its rare synonym translated “flame” are common portrayals of God’s wrath (Exod 15:7; Isa 10:17; Matt 3:12; Luke 3:17). In this context, however, the prophet stresses that the divine judgment will be inexorably applied to the detriment of Edom. Moreover, not only will the Israelites be allowed to respond to their enemies with the same treatment they had received, but also they will be instruments of God in executing judgment. The holy war against the enemies of God will take place through a coalition of nations (v. 1), including Judah (v. 18). Edom will be destroyed, and Judah will actively participate in the process of destruction. The divine judgment shall be categorically executed.26

    Verse 18 ends with the traditional formula of the prophetic messenger: “The LORD has spoken.” The use of this formula identifies the unit (vv. 15a, 16-18) as an oracle; the theme present is that of judgment.

    Verses 19-21. Some scholars think the final section of Obadiah’s message was originally written in prose.27 In any event, the passage does not reflect traditional poetic style. The prophet affirms that the restoration of Judah includes the promise of reestablishing the ancient territory of Israel. The prophet incorporates the theme of the land to the list of events that demonstrate the final victory of Judah and the final destruction of Edom.

    The nations that took advantage of Judah’s devastation to take over unjustly their territories must return that land; the divine intervention and the repeated use of the Hebrew verb vry (yAras, “to possess”) evoke the period of the conquest of Canaan, when Israel took possession of the land. The prophet affirms the importance of the Israelites’ reclaiming the land occupied by the Edomites.

    Verses 19-20. References to the Negev, the desert south of Judah, begin and end this unit. The Edomites, after the destruction of Jerusalem and the deportation of Israel to Babylonia in 587/586 BCE, infiltrated the region located south of Judah and north of Beersheba. During the times

     

     

    <Page 455 Ends><Page 456 Begins>

    of the Maccabees (1 Macc 5:65), the city of Hebron (north of the Negev) was still possessed by the Edomites; the region was then known as Idumaea. The triumph and conquest of Edom, Mount Esau (v. 19), marked the beginning of an era of national restoration.

    The Hebrew text is difficult to translate, but the NRSV and the NIV have contributed to a better understanding of the passage. Yet they do not resolve all the problems. In the first place, although not identified explicitly in the text, the subject of the verse is the Israelites, in particular, the remnant of Israel (v. 19). Second, the NRSV’s “Shephelah” should not be interpreted as the proper name of a region; the NIV offers a better understanding of the passage, rendering the expression as “people from the foothills.” Some scholars feel that the references to Mount Esau and to Shephelah are subsequent commentaries to Obadiah’s message, added to emphasize the anti-Edomite character of the writing.

    The restoration of Judah will include the reconquest of the ancient territories of Israel: to the south, the Negev; to the west, “the land of the Philistines”; to the north, “the land of Ephraim and the land of Samaria.” This triumph will allow Benjamin (i.e., the youngest tribe of Israel) to “possess Gilead.”

    The first part of v. 20 is also very difficult to translate. The Hebrew phrase hzhAljh (hahel-hazzeh; lit., “their hosts”) has been understood by the NRSV as a reference to the exiles in Halah, a region near Nineveh, a place to which some Israelites had been deported (2 Kgs 17:6). This rendering of the passage highlights the final victory of Judah: the return of the exiled Israelites, even from the most remote places. In contrast, the NIV has translated literally the Masoretic Text. The Hebrew phrase that literally means “who are the Canaanites” (!yn[nkArva )aser-kuna (anîm) has been understood as a reference to the exiled Israelite groups. According to this translation, the exiles are not in Halah but in Canaan. Zarephath, a city near the Mediterranean Sea and about ten miles south of Sidon (1 Kgs 17:9-24), marks an ideal northern point for the reconquest by the Israelites. Sepharad may refer to Sardis, capital of Lydia, to the west of Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey), although scholars also place it in Spain, Greece, or Media. The passage assures exiles that, although they have been forced to live in remote places, God will bring them again to the promised land.

    According to vv. 19-20, Israelites will move in all directions to recover their historical lands. Judah’s victory is also a return to the promised land; their triumph over their enemies is an affirmation of the ancient promise of possession of the lands made to Israel’s forebears.

    Verse 21. This verse concludes the message of prophet Obadiah’s book. It includes a note of hope similar to the one added to the book of Amos, which presents the salvation of Israel in connection with its possession of Edom (Amos 9:12; see also Isa 11:14). The Israelites arrived at Mount Zion to rule over the Edomites, who in this verse are again called Mount Esau (vv. 8, 19). The NIV translation has rendered the Hebrew word !y[yvwm (môsî(îm) as “deliverers,” although it is not common in the Masoretic Text (cf. Neh 9:27); the NRSV has emended the text and used the passive voice (“those who have been saved”).

    This text, although it could be thematically and literally related to v. 17, presents the book’s major theological statement of victory. The final message of the book of Obadiah is one of victory and salvation: “The kingdom will be the LORD’s.” This theme is also echoed in the last book of the Bible (Rev 11:15). The international war against Edom (v. 1) will end in the recognition of the kingdom of God once and for all. The victorys”s not a mere nationalistic reawakening but the symbol of divine sovereignty. This affirmation reveals the theological justification of the message of Obadiah. God’s victory includes the restoration of God’s chosen people and the judgment of their enemies.

    This final verse of the book makes several important theological statements: God will raise up deliverers to fulfill God’s purpose in history. That victory will be an ultimate triumph over those who oppose the divine will. And victory exemplifies Yahweh’s rule in history.

     

     

    <Page 456 Ends><Page 457 Begins>

     

    REFLECTIONS

    The study of the book of Obadiah illumines some important issues for today’s church and believers. It presents a somber criticism of the lack of solidarity, it offers a word of hope for God’s people, and it shows the importance of consciously applying religious traditions to the current scene.

    1. Commitment to Meeting Human Needs. When they observe the behavior of the Edomites, believers see an example of the way God responds to the lack of solidarity with and commitment to the needy, the excluded, and the persecuted of society. The people of Judah were going through a grave crisis, and the Edomites, rather than sympathizing with and responding to the needs of their neighbors, betrayed them in a disgraceful way. They did not heed the cries for help on the part of the people of Judah, and they participated in the plunder and destruction of their neighbors. The Edomites not only ignored the requests for help from Judah, but they also collaborated with the Babylonians. Divine judgment will be the consequence of that unsympathetic attitude.

    That theological perspective of the book of Obadiah holds out a great challenge to modern believers: What theological and political posture are we to assume in the face of the needs of the poor, the excluded, and the destitute of society? The prophetic message of judgment on Edom stems from their attitude, first passive and then aggressive, regarding Judah’s misfortune. That theological perspective has repercussions today. The lack of solidarity is concretely manifested in the act of joining groups that despoil and wound the needy and underprivileged of society. Such attitudes invite the judgment of God.

    A fundamental value found in Latin American liberation theology is its emphasis on the contextualization of the Christian message.28 Theology ought not to be an academic exercise divorced from the everyday reality of the people but a critical reflection of the life experiences of God’s people. Theology, from that liberation theology perspective, encourages and engages in concrete demonstrations of the principles upon which the kingdom of God is founded. According to those criteria, Obadiah presents a vital theological and pastoral challenge. Seeing the people’s needs, God’s people must react with a sense of responsibility and solidarity. Intercessory prayer is important and welcome when it is accompanied by tangible acts of love that eliminate the causes that foment, favor, and perpetuate conditions of injustice among the destitute of society. The lack of concrete demonstrations of love constitutes an act of betrayal of both God and the people in need.

    Obadiah’s prophecy challenges believers to address real problems, such as racism and the oppression of socially excluded groups, such as ethnic minorities and homeless persons. The church and believers, faced with those social realities, can neither remain silent nor identify with the system that excludes or oppresses certain segments of society. In a social crisis that ignores the sorrow and pain of large sectors of the poor, and living in a society unwilling to project itself into the future with pluralism and multiculturalism, believers and the churches must provide sufficient space for the creation of more just and equitable institutions. The church institutions themselves must be transformed by kingdom of God values in the midst of society. To ignore the plight of the indigent is one of the reasons why God judged Edom. True theology responds to the needs of the people. If it cannot speak to the daily reality of the community, it is not good theology.

    2. Theology of Hope. A monumental contribution of Obadiah to believers is the affirmation

     

     

    <Page 457 Ends><Page 458 Begins>

    and development of a theology of hope. That theology is grounded in the conviction that God is with the people and has the ability and the will to intervene in the history of Israel. The theology of hope is not based on a utopian expectation but rather on the assurance and the confidence that God accompanies the people. That theology is the inspiration for the work of rebuilding the city. The theology of hope does not encourage believers to accept calamities passively; rather it mobilizes them to build a church and a society that show justice to and are supportive of the needy. Such a theology challenges us to dismantle and transform creatively the existing institutions that undermine the kingdom of God.

    The theology of hope is demonstrated in concrete, practical ways. The creation of institutions that do not discriminate on the basis of social background, nationality, or ethnicity is one practical way of demonstrating faith and theological commitment. Hope is not just a topic for speculation, for preaching, or for theological reflection; rather it is the basis for liberating actions. Speculation does not contribute substantially to the affirmation of life and justice; only real demonstrations of love can transform the human being and significantly affect society.

    As believers accept the challenge of Obadiah’s message of hope and commitment, they develop the ministry of the church. The community of believers is the basic environment for the development of programs of solidarity and hope that modern society needs.

    3. The Kingdom of God. The book of Obadiah ends with an important theological affirmation: “The kingdom shall be the LORD’s.” This declaration links the prophet’s message to the future. The last word of the prophet is not one of destruction and judgment, but a message of hope. At its end, the book provides a positive announcement of the arrival of the kingdom of God. The judgment of Edom will vindicate and exalt God’s people. Mount Zion, the symbol of the presence and the revelation of God, will be the capital of a restored nation.

    The theme of God’s working in the future and God’s role in the implementation of the kingdom must not be confined to sermons that stress the eschatological virtues of biblical theology. The building of the kingdom requires people to translate the theological principles of the kingdom into programs that will benefit believers, churches, and humanity in a tangible way.

    The creation of the kingdom requires the transformation of our own life situation. It requires the investment of economic and intellectual resources of the church to produce programs that will benefit God’s people in particular and humanity in general. The God of the future demands that believers become involved in the development of initiatives that demonstrate the divine commitment to people with needs.

    4. Contextualization of the Message. One hallmark of Obadiah’s message is the way in which it takes old prophetic themes and adapts them to new exilic realities. The prophet does not woodenly repeat the traditional messages of prophets such as Jeremiah. Obadiah revised the oracles in the light of the new social and political realities of the people, and he transformed those messages so as to guide and to educate the community. The true prophetic word is not a repetition of what other people have said; instead it is the result of a careful analysis of the situation, the serious evaluation of the old prophetic traditions, and the humble acceptance of God’s revelation.

    The repetition of earlier messages does not guarantee that God’s word will be proclaimed. Divine revelation is inseparably linked to real situations. God never addresses humanity as “to whom it may concern”; God calls specific individuals and peoples to respond to historic, concrete, and definite situations. The intimate relationship between human need and divine revelation is a fundamental quality of the prophetic message.

    God’s revelation to North American society at the end of the twentieth century is different from the one received at the beginning of the century. Hence, leaders and congregations must be willing to allow present needs to determine the congregational programs and homiletic

     

     

    <Page 458 Ends><Page 459 Begins>

    topics. Obadiah’s message is a good example of the importance of the intelligent adaptation and contextualization of God’s message.

    One of the challenges North America faces is the development and creation of a multicultural, multilingual, and pluralistic society and church. That kind of church is distinguished by the participation of all of its sectors, respect for divergent opinions, and the incorporation of minority groups into the decision-making processes.

  • Josh
    Josh Member Posts: 1,529 ✭✭✭

    Hi Dan....

    I think this thread is much better! Now everything
    is in one spot. What interests me about this set is that it has
    commentary on the Apocrypha. I was wondering if you would share a
    snippet from Bel and the Dragon and Susanna? Thanks. [:)]

  • Dan Francis
    Dan Francis Member Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭

    Joshua G said:

    Hi Dan....

    I think this thread is much better! Now everything
    is in one spot. What interests me about this set is that it has
    commentary on the Apocrypha. I was wondering if you would share a
    snippet from Bel and the Dragon and Susanna? Thanks. Smile

    Sure I will post Susanna later today sometime (part of it anyway)….

     

    -Dan

  • Dan Francis
    Dan Francis Member Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭


    SUSANNA

    VERSES 1-64

     

                                       <Page 171 Ends><Page 174 Begins>

     

    COMMENTARY

    The story of Susanna stands in some of the Greek versions as the first of the Daniel stories, before the Hebrew Daniel 1, but after chapter 12 in others. The motivation to place the story before the Daniel 1 was undoubtedly because Daniel is portrayed as a very young man (who is wise beyond his years) in this story.

    There are significant differences between the style of the story of Susanna and the Hebrew/Aramaic stories in Daniel 1–6 (the non-miraculous 

     

                                       <Page 174 Ends><Page 175 Begins>

    form of deliverance, the internal Jewish matters, among others). Further, Susanna differs from the other two additional works included in the Greek canon of the book of Daniel mainly because of its focus on the subjects of women, sexual abuse, and internal corruption in the Jewish community.

    It is often suggested that even though the story of Susanna is considered the most sophisticated and well-developed of the three additions to Daniel (the Song of the Three, for example, seems a hodgepodge of literary styles; Bel and the Dragon are clearly two separate stories), it was rejected by those rabbis who determined the canon because the court procedure was improper23 and because the authority of elders is seriously questioned (especially in the LXX version). It can be argued, however, that there are important reasons why it is significant that Susanna appears in the Daniel collection. First, it presents a female model of courage in a community that needs all of its resources and in which all persons share the threat of political exile and occupation. Second, Susanna includes a significant criticism of internal communal corruption, similar to that found in Ezra and Nehemiah, where it is also directed against corrupt or corruptible leaders of the community. Furthermore, the story of Susanna gives us an interesting episode in the life of the young Daniel, the legendary hero.

    Many theories have been suggested for the origin of the story. These include that it was a midrash on the evil prophets mentioned in Jeremiah 29; a late polemic between Pharisees and Sadducees on court procedure; and a folk tale that exhibits well-known themes in folklore, such as the wisdom of the elders overturned by a child.24 No single view, however, has commanded wide agreement. While Susanna is a tale that has clear similarities with the themes of Daniel 1–6, there is nothing within the story that allows a clear date or even a sociopolitical context for the Jewish community that treasured and maintained this story as a part of its religious lore.

    The story of Susanna affords us the opportunity to raise questions that have not previously arisen in the study of the book of Daniel—most important, the issue of women’s rights and place in society. Indeed, besides Susanna there is only one other significant woman in the entire Daniel corpus: the queen mother, who makes her appearance in Daniel 5. There seems little evidence that Susanna was written with any aspect of the queen mother in mind as the “other woman” of the Daniel tradition. But was Susanna written with Daniel even in mind? Some scholars wonder whether Daniel originally had a role at all in an earlier form of the Susanna legend—perhaps references to him being added only when the story was made a part of the Daniel tradition at about the time of its translation into Greek (c. 100 BCE).

    However, this account of life in the exilic community from a woman’s perspective gives us the opportunity to consider a Jewish woman as doubly a symbol of resistance—both to the oppression of exile and to male domination within the Jewish community—and as a model of the kind of spiritual tenacity necessary for faithful resistance in circumstances of exile or occupation. It seems hard to deny that Susanna as a woman within Jewish society is meant to mirror the Jew in foreign society. She is called to resist oppression within that society as the Jews were generally called to resist oppression from outside. Her resistance, her ability to speak truth to power, is honored in this story, as well as the young Daniel’s clever courtroom technique in defending her.

    Mieke Bal has asserted that there is a “dominant reading” of biblical texts and interpretative strategies that is “a monolithically misogynist view of those biblical stories wherein female characters play a role, and a denial of the importance of women in the Bible as a whole.”25 Part of this dominant reading, according to Bal, is to dismiss certain aspects of texts and stories that seem to be “meaningless details,” particularly where women are concerned. But attention to such details may have the effect of inverting previous perspectives. Such an analysis of the Susanna story, for example, has been provided by both Bal and Glancy, who focus important attention on Susanna as a woman whose actions are interpreted according to her “appearance” to the “male 

     

                                       <Page 175 Ends><Page 176 Begins>

    gaze.”26 Another way that one can become attuned to such details is through a survey of the literature on violence against women. This commentary will have occasion to relate the study of Susanna to feminist and other sociological studies of rape and violence against women.27

    Glancy notes that Susanna is largely the passive victim and the crime that stands “behind” the story is violation of possessions and honor of men—in this case Joakim the husband. Brownmiller argues that male possession laws are the foundation for most modern rape laws in Western society in that rape “was first and foremost a violation of male rights of possession, based on male requirements of virginity, chastity, and consent to private access as the female bargain in the marriage contract.”28

    Similarly, then, Glancy notes the intriguing symmetry between Susanna, the “violated wife,” and Joakim’s privileged garden:

    What is at stake in the story is not Susanna’s physical well-being as she is threatened with rape and death but the honor of Joachim’s household. When garden and wife are closed against intruders, Joachim’s honor is secure. When the garden is open to intruders, or if the wife is open to a young lover, the entire household is ashamed, its honor lost.29

    Glancy is surely correct in her insistence that modern readers often go along with the assumption of the story that the crime is attempted seduction rather than attempted rape—mainly because the modern reader is also beguiled by Susanna’s reputed beauty. Seduction seems, from such a reading, “natural” or “normal.” As Glancy puts it, the narrative of Susanna “relies on a code that represents femininity in terms of ‘to-be-looked-at-ness.’ ”30 Is it an overstatement to call what happens to Susanna rape? The elders, as we shall see, do not physically force themselves upon her. But the difficulty with calling their actions “seduction” is that this term does not adequately express the unequal power dynamics between Susanna and two respected (male) leaders of the community. While their confrontation may not have involved physical contact, in a real way it was overpowering to Susanna and would be referred to in modern terms as sexual harassment with important power dynamics involved. Brownmiller comments:

    All rape is an exercise in power, but some rapists have an edge that is more than physical. They operate within an institutionalized setting that works to their advantage and in which a victim has little chance to redress her grievance.31

    Given these dynamics, it is important to proceed with an assumption that we are dealing with what ought to be interpreted as attempted rape.

    Glancy’s analysis also alerts us to the significance of “seeing,” “gazing,” and “staring” in this story. The reader is invited to imagine the beauty of the bathing Susanna, for example, and thus to relate to the gaze of the hidden elders, who “burn with lust.” Significantly, Daniel catches the deceit of the elders precisely on what they have done, and not on what they have seen. The focused attention of the criminal elders on Susanna is so intent on the attempted rape of her that they give no thought to anything else.

    Finally, there is the curious reversal of roles for the figure of Daniel. Susannah is celebrated in this story as the persecuted Jew—persecuted by fellow Jews no less than by the Babylonians—and it is Daniel who assumes the role of the God-sent savior. Indeed, one would have to say that Daniel assumes the role of the angelic messenger—the God-sent salvation in virtually all the other Daniel stories. All of these details will be discussed at more length in the following analysis.

    Verses 1-4, Introduction and Setting Among the Babylonian Exiles. The first character to whom the reader is introduced in this story is Joakim, the husband of Susanna.32 He is among the exiles in Babylon, but is apparently 

     

                                       <Page 176 Ends><Page 177 Begins>

    rather well situated. The text describes him as rich, possessing a home with a fine garden. That Joakim is described as having married Susanna and built his fine home while in exile may well be a nod in the direction of Jeremiah’s advice in his letter to exiles that they marry and build houses (and plant gardens) so that their numbers will not decrease while in exile (see Jeremiah 29).

    We know from the book of Ezekiel (chaps. 14 and 20) that elders met in Ezekiel’s home for important gatherings, much as the writer of Susanna reports the elders’ meeting in the home of Joakim. While this detail may be dependent on sources such as Ezekiel, there is reason to believe that it was a significant memory of the sociological circumstances of the Babylonian exiles. This form of limited self-governance in exile is an important indicator that not only were the exiles able to maintain a familiar form of governance, but also that they settled in large enough groups to make this a viable social form.33

    The Greek term used for Joakim’s garden (paradeisov" paradeisos) is a Persian loan word from which we also get the English word “paradise” (see 2 Chr 33:20; Neh 2:8). There is another term that generally refers to a small garden (a vegetable garden? see Neh 3:16, 26). When this term is used together with the Greek term for a “paradise” (Eccl 2:5; Sir 24:30-31), it gives the reader the impression that the “paradise,” in contrast to the smaller garden, is a large area kept in a somewhat natural state of beauty. Note that the Garden of Eden is called a “paradise.”

    It is significant that Susanna is described as being both beautiful and God-fearing. Is the reader meant to understand that these attributes go together or that they are traits that somehow balance each other? Is feminine beauty a potential danger in a male-oriented reading of these verses? It is not unusual for matriarchs of Israel to be described as beautiful (the description of Sarah [Gen 12:14] and Rachel [Gen 29:17] use the same Greek terms; see also 1 Sam 25:3; 2 Sam 11:2; Ezek 16:13; Jdt 8:7). This very beauty, however, is taken almost inevitably as a foreshadowing of trouble (see Tob 3:14-15; 6:12). In her  work on rape and violence against women, Susan Brownmiller notes the frequency with which rape cases are reported in the media with a comment about the “beauty” of the victim:

    The murder of a beautiful young woman is no more regrettable, no greater tragedy, than the murder of a plain one, except in a culture that values beauty in women above other qualities. By putting greater store in the murder of a beauty, beauty acquires the seeds of its own destruction . . . thus the myth that rape is a crime of passion touched off by female beauty is given great credence, and women are influenced to believe that to be raped, and even murdered, is a testament to beauty.34

    In contrast to, or in connection with, this beauty, Susanna “fears the Lord.”

    The phrase used to describe Susanna as one who “feared the Lord” brings this text into an interesting relation with Sirach. The importance of “fear of the Lord” is repeated frequently in Sirach (Sir 1:13-14; 2:7-9; 6:16; 10:19-20; 21:6; 32:16; 34:14, 16), suggesting a possible relationship between the writer of Susanna and the wisdom tradition in late post-exilic Israel. Susanna, in short, practiced the way of the wise. Many readers, however, regard Sirach as blatantly misogynist (see Sir 25:16-26; 26:5-12; 42:9-14), so one must carefully note the contrasting positive view of a woman in Susanna. In short, one can make too much of wisdom connections (as has occurred frequently since such a suggestion was originally made by von Rad).35 Furthermore, it is noted that Susanna’s parents raised her in the knowledge of the law of Moses. This mention of the law of Moses is rather unique (and not present in the LXX version), but here in Susanna it serves as one piece of an important frame; the parents will be mentioned again in v. 62.

    Verses 5-6, Introduction to the Corrupt Elders. Two elders are singled out and are introduced as being newly appointed judges. Verse 5 also features an unknown prophetic saying that is often related to Jer 23:14-15 and to the accusation against false elders in Jer 29:21-23.

    The Greek term used here for “wickedness” (ajnomi"a anomia) is used to translate a variety of Hebrew words that are rendered in English 

     

                                       <Page 177 Ends><Page 178 Begins>

    variously as “sin,” “transgression,” and “iniquity.” Judgment is expressed against elders in Isa 3:14 and 9:15, and such leaders of the people were certainly vilified by Ezra (Ezra 10:14). The internal issues of wickedness suggest that Susanna was written in the Hellenistic era at a time when internal factions among the Jewish people began to tear apart the community and divide it into mutually antagonistic parties (a situation well established by the beginning of the New Testament era). It is this internal emphasis that gives Susanna its unique context in the rest of the book of Daniel.

    Verses 7-12, The Lust of the Elders. Susanna takes daily walks in Joakim’s garden—a detail that is essential to the development of the story. As she walks, she is seen by the two elders, who seeing her “desire” her (the term ejpiqumi"a [epithymia] is used for “covet” in Exod 20:17 LXX). The term epithymia runs throughout the story (vv. 8, 11, 14, 20, 56) and is a significant term that appears in wisdom tradition as well. According to Sirach, one is to “desire” wisdom and avoid the cheap lust of foolishness (Sir 16:1; 24:19). Consider also the wisdom context of the advice offered in 4 Maccabees:

    Self-control, then, is dominance over the desires [epithymia]. Some desires are mental, others are physical, and reason obviously rules over both. (4 Macc 1:31-32 NRSV)

    And why is it amazing that the desires of the mind for the enjoyment of beauty are rendered powerless? It is for this reason, certainly, that the temperate Joseph is praised, because by mental effort he overcame sexual desire. (4 Macc 2:1-2 NRSV)

    Verse 9 contains an interesting interrelation of phrases and ideas. The elders do three things: (1) suppress their consciences; (2) turn away their eyes from heaven; and (3) forget their duty to administer justice. The term used in the first phrase, “suppressed” or “perverted,” is common in wisdom literature (see Prov 6:14; 10:9; 11:20; Sir 19:25; 22:23). Perversion of judgment is also known in prophetic literature (see Isa 59:8; Mic 3:9; Hab 1:4).

    The phrase “to look into heaven” is not common in the Bible, but similar ideas certainly occur. The book of Isaiah contains a call to vigilance for God’s near deliverance (Isa 51:6) and describes Hezekiah as being weary from “looking into heaven” (Isa 38:14). Similarly Daniel “looked up” from fasting when he turned to God (Dan 10:5). Isaiah 33:15 suggests that people who survive God’s judgment are those who “shut their eyes from looking on evil.” Presumably, then, the phrase is a way to talk about trusting in God, and turning away from heaven is seen as the equivalent of the other two phrases in the verse. Moore notes, incidentally, that “heaven” could also be a replacement for “God” as is the case in the New Testament use of “kingdom of heaven” instead of “kingdom of God.”36 In general, the context reminds the reader of prophetic condemnation of the leaders of the Jewish community.

    Verse 12 brilliantly establishes the importance of the “gaze,” a dark sense of watching, in this story. The specific term used here is also used in Ps 37:12, where it is translated into English as: “The wicked plot against [or “watch for opportunities against”] the righteous, and gnash their teeth at them” (NRSV). Note that the wicked also “watched” Daniel to accuse him in Dan 6:12. In the story of Susanna, this gaze is intensified.

    Verses 13-14, The Plot Is Set. When, in v. 13, the two elders discover each other heading back to look once again upon the beauty of Susanna, these false judges ply their trade on each other! They “examine” each other with the acumen of lawyers and discover the truth about themselves. They agree to keep each other’s secret, and thus the second act of secrecy appears in the story (the first being the unnoticed watching of Susanna by these same elders, a watching that led to their taking their eyes off heaven). Throughout the story, secrecy is contrasted with openness, as the lustful gaze is contrasted with “seeing” in the sense of knowing the truth. The elders, however, now work in collusion. Brownmiller comments on modern cases:

    When men rape in pairs or in gangs, the sheer physical advantage of their position is clear-cut and unquestionable. No simple conquest of man over woman, group rape is the conquest of Men over Women. It is within the phenomenon of group rape, stripped of the possibility of equal combat, that the male ideology of rape is most strongly evident. Numerical odds are proof of brutal intention. They are proof, too, of male bonding . . . and proof of a desire to humiliate the victim beyond the act of rape through the process of anonymous mass assault.37

     

     

                                       <Page 178 Ends><Page 179 Begins>

     

    Verses 15-27, The Main Events of the Story. The main events of the story must begin with the elders’ secret entrance into the garden (a third act of secrecy). The writer does not specify when and how these men enter the garden, only that they are there when Susanna prepares to bathe. With the mention of Susanna’s bath, the reader is reminded of David’s walk on the roof of his palace and his lust for Bathsheba as he gazed on her bathing (2 Samuel 11). Like Susanna as well, Bathsheba is described as beautiful. Collins cites a number of other cases in Jewish tradition of men who are filled with desire when watching women bathe.38 The LXX does not include the bath scene at all, however, but instead related that the elders desire her merely from watching her on her occasional walks in the garden.

    Unlike David, whose position and power did not necessitate hiding, the elders watch Susanna in secret. Since the elders are in hiding, the maids who attend Susanna do not see them, and so the maids innocently shut the doors of the garden, leaving only the two elders and Susanna in the garden without further witnesses. At the moment the doors are shut the elders become like David. They now have the power of the male over the female, of an elder over a young person, and of judges within the community.

    In vv. 19-21, the elders speak as if Susanna can freely choose whether to comply with their desires—but she is not free. It is, rather, an act of coercion. Moore points out that the LXX is much stronger in the insistence of the elders and their initial approach to Susanna—suggesting rape.39 If Susanna is unwilling to have sexual intercourse with each of them, then the judges will use their powerful weapon of false accusation—the word of a trusted official over a mere woman. False accusation by the powerful was the same weapon used against Daniel (Dan 6:25). It is worth pausing to reflect on the fact that false accusation is a threat only when there is an unequal distribution of power. Susanna’s word is not equivalent to the word of the two male judges. Moreover, there are two of them to dispute Susanna’s accusations—two is the required number of witnesses for a capital case (Deuteronomy 19).

    In vv. 22-23, Susanna knows that she is threatened with being given over “into the hand” of her oppressor. Daniel, too, suffered the threat of being “in the hand” of his oppressor (Dan 3:15; cf. Deut 7:24; 32:39; 2 Kgs 18:29-30, 33-35; Jer 21:12; Dan 11:41; Mic 4:10).

    When faced with such overwhelming power over her, Susanna responds with the cry of the oppressed, “with a loud voice” (v. 24; see also vv. 42 and 60). Susanna thereby also fulfills Deut 22:24, which states that if a woman is threatened with rape within the city (that is, where she could be heard) she must call out; otherwise, she is suspected of complicity.40 The same Greek term used here is used of the Jews crying out from the oppression of Pharaoh (Exod 2:23; 14:10 LXX), and it is the same “weapon” used by Hagar in the wilderness, when she cries out to God (Gen 21:16), who delivers her. Similarly, the Jews cry out for mercy from the king in 3 Macc 5:51. This is not to suggest, however, that this outcry is a special or unique term, but the recurrence of the theme is hardly coincidental. To call out with a loud voice occurs in other important contexts as well. In Num 20:16, the call of the people in slavery is answered by God’s “sending an angel” (an obviously intriguing passage in the context of angelic deliverance in the Daniel tradition); and in Deut 26:7, the call is directed to the “God of our ancestors,” a term noted in the Song of the Three (see also Jdt 4:9, 12; 5:12; Ezek 11:13, where Ezekiel pleads with God not to bring an end to the people).

    But as Susanna cries out to God, the elders cry out to the other Jews. The elders make their accusation at this point in Theodotion, but in the LXX, they do not make their accusation public until the tribunal has been gathered. She has presented her fate to the only power that she now has: the delivering power of truth and, ultimately, of God. So Susanna joins Daniel and Mishael and Hananiah and Azariah, among many others, in becoming a model of piety and trustfulness in the context of exile and apparent defeat.

    In response to Susanna’s cries, the people in the house come to “see.” But they do not see; 

     

                                       <Page 179 Ends><Page 180 Begins>

    they only know what the elders tell them. Curiously, it is not said that Susanna tries to tell another version of the events at this point in the story. She is calm before her accusers. The elders’ version of the story is believed instantly; Susanna’s youth and femininity (and beauty?) disqualify her immediately in the face of the older male judges. Even the servants are ashamed of her.

    Verses 28-33, The Humiliation of the Oppressed. It is only at this point in the story that we hear of Susanna’s children. When summoned to appear before the judges, Susanna comes with her parents, husband, and children. Although in the Theodotion text the husband is not mentioned specifically (Did he refuse to risk humiliation?), he is noted in the LXX version. Furthermore, as Collins points out, it is significant that they gather back at the house of Joakim—that is, the scene of the crime—so that they can all see the trees about which Daniel will soon question the “witnesses.”41 Why is the family included at this point? Is it because it is precisely the integrity of the family that is at issue here? In circumstances of exile and occupation and colonization, family takes on heightened importance. Memmi, for one, does not necessarily celebrate this fact, suggesting that the family becomes the only place where self-governing authority is still possible.42 But we know that the familial structure was economically important too. Hence the tremendous importance given to the crisis of intermarriage in Ezra–Nehemiah.43

    In the Septuagint version of the book of Susanna, she is stripped before her accusers. The intention of the translators was probably to convey that she was stripped naked, at least to the waist. (Being stripped for adultery is attested in Ezek 16:37-39; Hos 2:3, 10.) But there may be more going on here; Susanna has not even been adequately tried before this condemning act of stripping her is called for. The elders desire that Susanna be unveiled, so that they might “look” at her again. No reason is given for the order that Susanna be unveiled. Is her beauty supposed to be taken as further evidence against her by the court that has been called into session? Are we readers invited to be sympathetic to the elders’ lust because of her reputed beauty? Why do they demand this humiliation of her? The Greek terms used here are correctly rendered in English as “feast the eyes” (NRSV). The same complex term is used in Ps 78:29 in reference to being satiated, filled. The Old Greek adds the element of the elders’ lust in looking at her. Thus Susanna is not merely overpowered; she is to be humiliated (note the discussion of the humiliation of the defeated in the Commentary on Daniel 5). 

    Verses 34-41, The Denunciation of Susanna. Verse 34 relates that the elders, rising to tell their stories, lay their hands on Susanna’s head. Is this a way of identifying the guilt of the accused? In Lev 3:2, 8, 13 and 4:4, 11, 15, the officiating priest lays his hand on the sacrificial offering, an action intended to transfer punishment of guilt.44 If this is true, then once again her guilt is presumed in their first act, before they even begin to tell their version of the events.

    For the significance of “looking into heaven,” see Commentary on v. 9. Here, Susanna’s looking to heaven means trusting in the Lord. To trust in the Lord is an important post-exilic expression for faithfulness. God, according to Nebuchadnezzar, delivered servants who “trusted in him” (Dan 3:28) since no harm came to Daniel in the lions’ den “because he had trusted in God” (Dan 6:23). Sirach teaches the reader to “consider the generations of old and see: has anyone trusted in the Lord and been disappointed?” (Sir 2:10 NRSV; see also 11:21; 32:24; see also the trust in God noted in 2 Macc 8:18; 3 Macc 2:4; 4 Macc 7:21). In the post-exilic context, trusting in the Lord is clearly a concept related to the power of God to deliver in circumstances of overwhelming threat. Once again, the writer uses terminology that equates Susanna’s plight with the most serious of threats to Jews by foreigners in the book of Daniel and elsewhere.

    The accusation brought against Susanna in vv. 36-41a is adultery. The elders, so they claim, saw her lying with a young man, who escaped when the elders presented themselves to the young 

     

                                       <Page 180 Ends><Page 181 Begins>

    couple in the course of sexual intimacy. The Greek terms used here make the sexual nature of this accusation clear (see Gen 19:5; 39:10; and Jdt 12:16). In the Theodotion version, the alleged young man was too strong for the elders to restrain him, while in the LXX the young man escapes in disguise. In the Theodotion version, the elders claim to be overpowered, but in reality it is Susanna who is overpowered by the elders’ story. The judges are believed, and Susanna is convicted. The reader is invited to experience indignation at this injustice and to side with, if not identify with, the female against the authority of the male elders.

    Verses 42-51, Susanna’s Cry and Daniel’s Arrival. Once again, Susanna is portrayed as the oppressed “crying out” to God. This is obviously an important theme in the story and, as the commentary has indicated, throughout the Bible—especially in the post-exilic period. But what is of further interest here is precisely what Susanna cries out. The phrase “O eternal God” is not widely attested in the Bible (Gen 21:33; Isa 26:4; 40:28), but it is found rather extensively in the book of Daniel (Dan 3:33 [v. 100 of The Song of the Three]; 4:31 [Theodotion]; 7:14, 27; 9:24; 12:2). It appears to be the case that this is yet another of the ways of referring to God (“the living God,” “God of heaven,” etc.) that became popular in the period of exile and occupation.

    A second interesting phrase in this prayer is the reference to God as the “knower of secrets” or the “one who knows things hidden” (author’s trans.). This aspect of God is of obvious importance in a story where evil and corruption have been associated with persons, ideas, and thoughts that are hidden. Truth will be a revelation in the sense that it will be released from its captivity at the hands of the powerful. Susanna knows their deceit, of course, and now finally protests her innocence (v. 43). Susanna, once again, is similar to Daniel (see Daniel 6).

    Verse 44 is deceptively short, but politically powerful: “The Lord heard her cry.” Compare the hearing of God in stories of two other women of Jewish history and lore: Hagar (Gen 21:12, 17) and Judith (Jdt 4:13; 8:17). In v. 45, God’s action is to stir up trouble for human leaders once again—God’s resistance to human oppression and incompetence. Daniel, now in the role usually expected of an angelic messenger, is “stirred” by the Spirit of God (see Judg 5:12; Isa 51:9, 17; 52:1; Dan 7:4; 11:25; 12:2; 2 Macc 13:4).

    Daniel calls out, in prophetic tones, that he will not be a party to the shedding of innocent blood (cf. Jer 7:6 as a classic example of this phrase in prophetic literature; it is used extensively as an image of killing the innocent, especially God’s chosen messengers). Daniel describes the people as “fools.” Jeremiah, too, condemned his listeners as fools (Jer 5:21), and the image of the fool runs through Sirach as the antithesis to the godly, the pious, and the wise: “The mind of fools is in their mouth/ but the mouth of the wise is in their mind” (Sir 21:26; see also Sir 4:27; 8:17; 16:23; 21:14).

    Daniel calls on the judges to judge properly. The witnesses have not been thoroughly examined. This is necessary in Jewish law,45 but is the reader to presume from the story that Daniel is reacting to the improper conduct of the trial or to some knowledge he possesses of the events that he has not yet revealed? Should the reader assume that Daniel was clever enough to sense something wrong about the elders’ story or that such knowledge comes with being “stirred” by God? Whatever the reason for Daniel’s coming to Susanna’s defense, the other elders recognize in him a wisdom beyond his years.46 Daniel is invited to come and to finally reveal what has been hidden from everyone but Susanna, the two corrupt judges, and Daniel himself.

    Verses 52-59, The Examination of the Judges and the Truth Revealed. Daniel separates the two false judges, intending to examine each of them in turn. He requests that each judge be brought to him separately. What is interesting is that Daniel greets each of them with hostility. 

     

                                       <Page 181 Ends><Page 182 Begins>

    The first is called “an old relic of wicked days.”47 (Since the “day of adversity” is noted in Isa 50:9; 51:6; Jer 16:19; and Amos 6:3, one may wonder whether “the evil days” that are referred to here are the days leading up to the exile. After all, it was a central tenet of deuteronomistic theology that the exile was brought on by the sins of the people, and the leaders particularly.) Daniel delivers a searing condemnation of the generation of the exile in words similar to those of Jeremiah or Isaiah. In v. 53, Daniel lists the sins of leaders in a manner that is highly stylized in prophetic speech (see Isa 5:23; 29:21; Jer 7:6; 19:4; 22:3, 17) but is also noteworthy in wisdom literature (Prov 17:15; 24:24). 

    Verse 54 leaves no doubt that sexual impropriety/adultery is the accusation here (cf. the situation in Judith 12 that uses some of the same Greek terminology). Daniel’s asking the elder about what kind of tree under which this alleged sin took place allows for a clever wordplay in Greek. The type of tree the elder names is called sci’nov (schinos; NAB and NRSV, “mastic”), and Daniel follows this up with a condemnation that calls for the false witness “to be cut in two”, or sci"zw (schizo, v. 55). Moore, interestingly, suggests that we maintain the wordplay even in English and, therefore, supplies “clove tree” and “cleave” in the first instance, and “yew” and “hew” in the second instance.48 It is also noteworthy that an angel appears as an agent of judgment in Daniel’s condemnation of the lying elder.49

    Verse 56 mirrors the preceding questioning, this time of the second elder. Once again, Daniel meets the false witness with hostility, and once again the specific vocabulary of abuse is noteworthy: Daniel calls him a “son of Canaan” (NAB and NRSV, “offspring of Canaan”). Both Ezra 9:1 and Neh 9:8 use “Canaanite” as a term of derision, referring to the peoples traditionally conquered by Joshua at the Israelites’ entry into the land; by Ezra’s time, the term had long since ceased to be an accurate description of an actual, contemporary cultural/religious group.50 It is possible that Ezek 16:3 is intended to be a similar slur in the context of delivering a judgment. However, the use of “Canaan” as the name for the people who dwelled in Palestine before the Israelite settlement was common in the late Hellenistic literature (see Judith 5; Bar 3:22; 1 Macc 9:37). Its use here, strikingly, seems to be intended as an ethnic slur. Again, in this accusation, lust is given the blame for leading the judge into sin. The wisdom associations of this idea have already been noted (it plays a role in the beginning of the story, v. 14, and at the end, v. 56), but note also that “corruption” also turns up at the beginning and ending (vv. 9 and 56). There is a circular sense of “just rewards” in the story of Susanna; the lying, lustful elders are condemned for what they gave themselves up to in the beginning.

    The contrast between the daughters of Israel and the daughters of Judah is quite interesting, although somewhat obscure. Are we to see in Daniel’s statement a reference to the well-known northern propensity to mix with Canaanite religious ideas on a scale supposedly not tolerated in the southern kingdom before the exile? Collins doubts this, because Susanna herself is called an Israelite earlier, and he suggests that perhaps the later Samaritan split is what is referred to here.51 This would be a post-exilic religious development in the Jewish community. The precise nature of the Samaritan split, however, is still quite controversial,52 so this must remain an enigmatic reference in the story.

    When questioned about the kind of tree under which they witnessed Susanna’s “adultery” taking place, the second elder answers, “Under an evergreen oak” (v. 58). The reader is struck by the difference in the testimony of the elders and joins the surrounding community, as if sitting in a modern courtroom, when they all come to know the truth of the matter. The second elder, too, is condemned by Daniel to face the executing angel of God, who stands ready with sword in hand.

    Verses 60-64, Reaction and Conclusion. The people cry out, but this time in jubilation. 

     

                                       <Page 182 Ends><Page 183 Begins>

    God is celebrated as the one who saves those who hope in God (see Pss 33:18; 42:5, 11; 69:6; Sir 34:13; 49:10; 2 Macc 2:18; 7:20; 9:20; 4 Macc 17:4). Verses 61-62 participate in the role-reversal that is typical of the Daniel stories—the guilty are condemned, and the innocent are vindicated.

    Five verses seems a lot of text to dedicate to the happy ending of this story, but the passage serves to justify the conclusion that putting the world right and vindicating the innocent are extremely important aspects of the story. This is an idealistic ending—the restoration of the community under the law of Moses. And it is precisely these last five verses that represent the vision and the hope of the writer of the story of Susanna.

    The LXX has a rather nice thought at the end:

    On account of this, the youths are the beloved of Jacob, in their singlemindedness. Let us also watch out for capable young sons, for youths will be pious, and there will be in them a spirit of knowledge and understanding for ever and ever.53

    Given Susanna’s courage, obviously we should amend this quotation to read that we should watch out for capable sons and daughters! Collins suggests that this ending has the tendency to focus the story on youth vs. elders, rather than Theodotion’s emphasis on the courage of Susanna. But we should note that the general themes of innocence, guilt, and truth are all seen as significant in the conclusion of the story. This should not distract the reader from the central elements of the story as a whole—that is, the oppression of the powerless by the powerful.

    REFLECTIONS

    Germaine Greer has suggested two categories of rape: “grand rape” and “petit rape.” The former is what we ordinarily associate with forcible rape. The latter, however, is a form of rape in which “the seducer in fact has some disproportionately unfair advantage over the woman. He need not threaten her, but it is his superior power which induces her to acquiesce against her will.”54 Clearly, the difference between seduction and rape is not so clear, especially in a case like that of Susanna.

    Only when one reads literature on rape does one begin to realize how complicit one becomes in Susanna’s abuse by “understanding” (read: excusing) the near rape of her as just a symptom of the social circumstances of exile. Such a view diminishes Susanna’s suffering and marginalizes her as a possession of her husband and as a temptress (only because she is beautiful). But it is only when we understand the story about rape, when we confront the sobering impact of using the term itself, that the story actually unfolds with all its power as a part of the Daniel corpus about resistance.

    Susanna is approached by two men who try to exert their influence, power, and authority over her. The distribution of power and choice is clearly weighted in favor of these elders. She must either give herself to them or face death as a falsely accused adulteress. Susanna’s courage, her turning to God in the face of overwhelming danger, is, therefore, the equivalent to Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah standing before Nebuchadnezzar and refusing his command to bow down and pray to him.

    The story of Susanna invites us to consider injustice within as well as outside of our religious life. Thus the context of exile is almost an ironic twist—as if to say to the reader, “The Babylonians aren’t the only sources of injustice here.” Finally, we must remember that the story is not only about the sin of the elders, but also about the corruptibility and foolishness of the entire exiled community. The elders are not the only fools identified by the young

     

     

                                       <Page 183 Ends><Page 184 Begins>

    Daniel. The community in the story of Susanna is ready to judge her without a trial, and she is marched through a kangaroo court. The community, too, is showing signs of internal corruption and lack of fortitude. Daniel calls for solidarity as well as wisdom when he labels them fools for condemning “a daughter of Israel without examination and without learning the facts” (v. 48 NRSV). Note, further, the enigmatic saying “This is how you have been treating the daughters of Israel, and they were intimate with you through fear; but a daughter of Judah would not tolerate your wickedness” (v. 57 NRSV). It has been speculated that this verse refers to conditions before the exile, or perhaps to the Samaritan split (i.e., Samaritans=north/Israelites). In at least one significant passage, “daughters” is a metaphor for the people as a whole. In Ezekiel 23, the northern kingdom, called Oholah (Samaria), and the southern kingdom, called Oholibah (Jerusalem), are condemned for having committed “adultery” with Assyria, Babylonia, and Egypt. If Daniel intends a similar metaphor, then the “daughters” are the people as a whole, corrupted by the “foreigners,” implied in his calling the corrupt elders “Canaanite” (v. 56). Susanna’s treatment, then, is severely condemned by Daniel in terms that suggest that the elder’s behavior is equivalent to idolatrous behavior of the people as a whole in previous eras.

    It is clear that Susanna goes through all the steps of the otherwise oppressed male Jews in the Daniel tradition: confrontation with an overpowering threat, calling out to God, angelic/miraculous delivery, and punishment of the accusers. Reflection on this detail calls on us to face a most uncomfortable reality in the modern church: We can become so wrapped up in the faith and justice issues of the world that we fail to address the insidious presence of injustice within our own fellowship. 

    The continued second-class status of women within some churches, and particularly the continued refusal of some faith traditions to accept a woman’s call to equal leadership in ministry, is simply an acceptance of the world’s judgment of women, and it makes a mockery of the church’s claim to seek justice and the full expression of the kingdom of God within our world.55 Those who would continue such suppression and oppression, even in the church, ought to keep in mind that the story of Susanna emphasizes that “the Lord heard her cry”! 

     

                                       <Page 184 Ends><Page 185 Begins>

  • Dan Francis
    Dan Francis Member Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭


    Proverbs 27:1-22, On Friendship and Paradox

    Link to:  

     

     

                                       <Page 228 Ends><Page 229 Begins>

    COMMENTARY

    The twenty-two proverbs here gathered are the last in the first half of the Hezekian collection (see Commentary on 25:1), and they have much the character of a proverb miscellany. Two topics do receive emphasis, however: friendship and paradoxical twists in human relations. The proverbs of this section are generally joined as pairs, but in some instances they are connected in “leap-frog” or “plaited” fashion, with one saying linked to the second saying following (see also Proverbs 29). The poem in 27:23-27 rounds off the subcollection; compare the poems in 23:29-35; 24:30-34; and 31:10-31, which ends the entire book.

    27:1-2. These verses are linked by a common term; in Hebrew, “praise” and “boast” are the same word (llh hAlal). Verse 1 sounds much like Ecclesiastes, with its pervasive focus on the limits of human life and knowledge. The advice (an admonition with motive) is obvious and has parallels in many societies. For instance, “Don’t count your chickens before they hatch.” Yet we frequently ignore such obvious common sense. The proverb in 1 Kgs 20:11, with its surrounding narrative, gives similar advice in the context of preparing for battle: “One who puts on armor should not brag like one who takes it off” (NRSV). Confidence regarding the future must be realistic, modest, and grounded in the fear of the Lord (31:25, 30; see Commentary on 20:24). Only God is master of the future (16:1, 9; Jas 4:13-17). Thus Jeremiah urges the wise, the mighty, and the rich to boast only in knowing Yahweh (Jer 9:23-24; for “knowing” God, see Jer 22:13-16).

    Verse 2 is another “obvious” admonition. It, too, is routinely ignored by people who may be insecure, feel undervalued, or are vain and proud—perhaps all at the same time. This admonition gives no grounds for the advice, but a little observation shows how much people resent others who are “full of themselves” or who “toot their own horn.” Self-praise is generally counterproductive. On the other hand, some Christian bodies fail to affirm their various, diverse members, perhaps for fear of “making” others proud (see Commentary on 12:8). In such communities mutual praise grows silent and unity of spirit flags. The words here for “another” and “stranger” also describe the “strange” or “foreign” woman (see 2:16 and Reflections at 5:1-23).

     

     

                                       <Page 229 Ends><Page 230 Begins>

     

     

    27:3-4. Another pair, these verses are linked in form and in presenting a crescendo of emotions culminating in jealousy as the most unbearable (see Gen 49:7). The images of v. 3 generate a paradox: Heavier for humans than stone or sand is the “immaterial” burden of a fool’s provocation (see Job 6:2-3; Sir 22:14-15). “Provocation” can also refer to “anger” (see v. 4) and to “grief,” such as what a foolish youth can give parents (17:25; see 21:19). In v. 4, “jealousy” arises out of an offended, properly exclusive love’s being violated (6:34; see 14:30). The rhetorical question, “Who can stand?” expects the answer, “No one.”

    27:5-6. These verses are a pair of paradoxes on the “tough love” that is sometimes required in faithful relationships. The pair is linked by repetition of the root for “love” (bha )Aheb, “friend” in v. 6), so that v. 6 comments on the paradox of v. 5. The word translated “profuse” or “multiplies” (rt[ (Atar) is uncertain, but may mean “excessive” in the transferred sense of “false.”290 Kisses from an enemy are the ultimate betrayal (Matt 26:48-50).

    27:7-8. Although v. 7 at first glance appears isolated, it shares an alliterative use of n (nun) with v. 8 and continues the sequence of paradoxes. In juxtaposition with v. 8, there may be an allusion here to honey as an erotic metaphor for the “strange” or “foreign woman,” whose end is “bitter” (see Commentary on 5:3-4; 9:17; 24:13-14). If this is correct, then vv. 7-8 have been paired editorially (note also the mention of jealousy, love, and kisses in vv. 4-6 and of the foreign woman in v. 13b [NRSV margin]; cf. 6:32-34; 7:13, 18). The satisfied husband is content and does not wander like an errant bird from the nest (see 7:19). People controlled by lust or hunger cannot or do not discriminate.

    Verse 7 can also stand independently as an astute observation into human behavior and as a suggestive metaphor with many applications: “Appetite is the best pickle,” and “Hunger is the best cook.” In contrast, the wealthy may have a spoiled appetite. At a deeper level, the inversion of “bitter” and “sweet” serves as a metaphor for moral and spiritual confusion. The wise should be able to tell the two apart, because they know the proper order of things (Isa 5:20-23). In extreme cases, as survivors of war and famine know, all-consuming hunger can utterly confuse human judgments of what is right and what is wrong (see 2 Kgs 6:24-31).

    When read as an independent saying, v. 8 evinces a profound regard for human roots in place and history. It has a parallel in Isa 16:2-3, which refers to the homelessness of exile (“home” here is lit., “place”).

    27:9-10. These verses form a pair linked by the key word “friend” ([r rea(). The LXX adds “wine” to those things that make the heart glad (see 27:11; Ps 104:15). Wisdom also knows, however, that too much love of good things is folly (see 21:17). The Hebrew of v. 9b (vpn-_|A-tx[m wh[r qtmw ûmeteq re(ehû me(azat-nApes) is notoriously difficult. The NRSV thus opts to translate the LXX, which provides a good antithesis to v. 9a. There are good reasons for attempting to make sense of the Hebrew, however. The image of sweetness has already appeared in v. 7, in collocation with “appetite”/“soul”/ “person” (vpn nepes), a combination also appearing in v. 9b. Verse 9b, as noted, is also tied to v. 10 through repetition of “friend” (for this term, see Commentary on 17:17-18). The Hebrew may be translated either as in the NIV or as “a friend’s sweetness (gladdens) more than one’s own counsel,” with the verb from v. 9a doing double duty.291 On this reading, “sweetness” refers to a quality of speech or counsel (see 16:21, 24; 24:13-14; Ps 55:14). Some suggest that “sweetness” (qtm meteq) actually means “counsel.” Thus, “a friend’s counsel [with a pun on “sweetness”] is better than one’s own advice”—“two heads are better than one.” The line remains uncertain.

    Verse 10 is an admonition that insists on solidarity both in the extended family and among friends and neighbors (see Commentary on 17:17-18). Although siblings are one’s most natural allies, one needs to avoid overreliance on them or (in the extended sense of “brother”) on clan and covenant partners (see 25:16-17). The somewhat unusual addition of a third line (see 25:13) sharpens the point that family alone is not enough for well-being. It observes realistically that a dis-

     

     

                                       <Page 230 Ends><Page 231 Begins>

     

    tant brother can do less good than a close neighbor, a thought that partially corroborates the earlier observation on wandering from one’s “place” (v. 8).

    27:11. This verse concludes the first half of the twenty-two verses (see Commentary on 23:15). Like v. 10, it is an admonition, addressed to “my son” and urging him to be wise (see Commentary on 10:1). For the expression “makes the heart glad,” see Commentary on 27:9. The admonition reflects an intense sense of family solidarity and the mutual pride of the generations in one another (see 17:6). In Israel’s patriarchal honor-and-shame culture, one needed to be able to answer those who sought to bring shame on the family (for the idiom, see Ps 119:42). Thus the honor of a “father’s house” is preserved.

    27:12-13. With minuscule variations, v. 12 duplicates 22:3, and v. 13, another admonition, repeats 20:16. Together these verses may partially spell out what the parent in v. 11 understands a wise son to be. A son who does not look ahead (v. 12) is likely to end up in the predicament described in v. 13. The variant in v. 13b refers to the foreign woman, which may be an editorial attempt to connect this passage with chaps. 1–9.

    27:14. The focus turns from the “stranger” (v. 13) back to the “neighbor” of v. 10. It portrays a humorous failure of fittingness (see Commentary on 25:20; 26:1-12), where a blessing is received as if it were a curse, because it is delivered at the wrong time (“early in the morning,” perhaps a gloss, but see Sir 22:6) or in the wrong manner (“with a loud voice”).

    27:15-16. Verse 15 is related to a number of sayings on the quarrelsome wife (see Commentary on 21:9, 19; 25:24), and the entire verse is an expansion of 19:13b (see vv. 12-13, which are also variants of other sayings). Verse 16, however, has not been satisfactorily explained, though its connection with v. 15 is patent.

    27:17. This verse is another saying on friendship, with a leap-frog link to v. 19. The saying is simple and profound with its metallurgical metaphor of sharpening (the translations assume minor repointing of the verbs). “The wits of another” is literally “the face of his friend” ([r rea(; see Commentary on 27:9-10). “Face” is puzzling, but it may be explained as a continuation of the metaphor of sharpening, since the working edge of a sword or knife is called its “face” (Eccl 10:10; Ezek 21:21).292 Another solution is to presume a different root for the second verb and translate, “one man makes the face of his friend glad” (cf. 15:13a for a similar idiom).293 But this damages the parallel and point of the sharpening metaphor.

    27:18. The writer assumes that every person has an honor or glory appropriate to his or her calling, no matter how humble, and that faithful service receives its reward. Often this is an increase in status and responsibility, as in the well-known stories of Joseph and Daniel in foreign courts. See the Commentary on 26:1 for the meaning of “honor” and its social misapplication.

    27:19. This saying is a somewhat cryptic, non-verbal sentence; lit., “as water, the face to the face, so the man’s heart to the man.” The translators have supplied “reflects,” assuming that it or something similar is implicit. The translations of v. 19b reveal the major interpretative problem in the verse. Does a man’s heart (see Excursus, “The ‘Heart’ in the Old Testament,” 60-61) reflect the man (!dah hA)AdAm) to himself (NIV)? On this reading, one comes to self-knowledge by internal self-examination. Or does one heart reflect another person’s heart (NRSV)? The latter reading is preferable, because it reinforces the link in form and meaning with v. 17 and the theme of friendship, which dominates this section.

    27:20. This verse is simple but deep. For “Sheol” and “Abaddon” see Commentary on 15:11. The grave is never satisfied or filled with the generations of the dead; it never says, “Enough” (30:15b-16).

    27:21-22. Both sayings concern the possibility of personal refinement. Verse 21 forms an envelope on “praise”/“boasting” with vv. 1-2 (see also 12:8; 31:30). It uses a metallurgical image to portray the process by which persons are tested. Verse 21a is a duplicate of 17:3, but v. 21b heads in another direction. The thought seems to be that praise is a test of a person’s mettle. Will it “go to one’s head,” or will the person remain even-keeled with realistic self-assessment (11:2)? Verse 22 uses the image of a mortar and a pestle to show the impossibility of separating fools from their folly.

     

     

                                       <Page 231 Ends><Page 232 Begins>

     

    REFLECTIONS

    1. “Open rebuke” may be the means by which a true friend wounds a loved one, as a surgeon wounds a patient to do good in the end (27:5-6; see 28:23; Deut 8:16). Rebuke can be given and received in a spirit of wisdom (13:18; 15:31-32; 25:12). Though painful, it is better than hidden love, which remains useless, like some treasure buried in a field (Matt 13:44; 25:25). It is not just the thought that counts. Rather, if actions speak louder than words, then they speak immeasurably louder than mere thoughts. Love must manifest itself in wise, appropriate action, because we humans are embodied creatures, made of earth and air. To assert that only one’s heart or soul matters is a form of gnosticism that devalues God’s good creation. It is true that Paul championed faith without works, but he did so only to assert the indispensability and sufficiency of grace. Nonetheless, Paul also insisted on faith with works, endurance based in hope, and love that labors and suffers in concrete, visible ways (1 Thess 1:3; cf. Rom 5:1-5). The paradox of Prov 27:5-6 is explored in Shakespeare’s great tragedy King Lear. Though even his fool knows better, Lear prefers false flattery to Cordelia’s silent, but honest, love.

    2. To stray or wander away can have a variety of causes (27:8; Sir 29:18-28; 39:4). In the biblical story, Cain is the first to wander the earth (Gen 4:12-16). Cut off from the roots that nourish us (geography, family, nation, culture, and community), we are diminished. In these realities, we find our home, our work, our vocation, our blessing. The rootlessness of modern life is an affliction all the more acute because we often suffer it unawares and confuse it with freedom. And yet, Abraham left his home to find a new home, a new city whose maker and builder was God (Gen 12:1-3; Heb 11:8-10). A basic tension of human life is that we are earthlings, made from the earth (Gen 2:7); and yet we have no abiding home here, until all things will be made new in a new creation in which “righteousness is at home” (2 Pet 3:13).

    3. Friendship is a major concern of Proverbs 27. Verse 17 focuses on the sharpening effect friends have on one another, presumably because they are not afraid to exercise tough love (27:5-6). Verse 19 treats a related aspect of friendship, the mutuality of self-knowledge and knowledge of the other. We know ourselves as we know, and are known by, others. The self refracted through another self becomes richer and is more clearly seen. Through such a dialectic of personal knowledge, two souls can be knit together in love (1 Sam 18:1-4). In another cultural setting, Aristotle observed that the good person relates to a friend as to oneself, for a friend is “another self.”294 This mutuality of hearts and souls should not be restricted to voluntary friendship. It is utterly essential to the state of being one flesh in marriage. On a much larger scale, when God renews the chosen people, they will be given “one heart and one way” (Jer 32:39 NRSV).

    4. The comparison of Sheol to the insatiable human eye (27:20) should give pause on two counts. The Preacher says that the eye is never satisfied with riches (Eccl 4:8; see 1:8), even though death is inescapable. More than that, it is as if the eye feeds on death, and this may be the main point. The “lust of the eyes” (1 John 2:16 NKJV) turns the good things of creation into something deadly to the self. Advertising in our industrial-capitalistic society ceaselessly stimulates visual desire and promotes unwearying covetousness of things and persons (as objects for sex or control). Delitzsch quotes an old Arab proverb, “Nothing fills the eyes of man but at last the dust of the grave.”295

  • Ellis I. Washington
    Ellis I. Washington Member Posts: 23 ✭✭

    I for one, really am anxious to see this published if, for no other reason, the diversity of authorship that is sorely missed in the selection of resources currently offered by Logos.

  • Dan Francis
    Dan Francis Member Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭

    The 97 contributors make up a rich mosaic including top evangelical, catholic and mainline protestant scholars. I have scene several times too people asking about a good commentary on the Apocrypha and while something like anchor covers more books, I love the treatment of the Apocrypha (deutercanon to our Catholic brethren). So often like the lange commentary you are left with a very second hand treatment of the books. In the NIB they are treated as books worthy of study and application, for while many  in the church do not accept them as scriptures I wish more people war like Luther who considered them solid edifying works that he commended Christians to read, much as the Church of England has done. Whether they were ever treated as Scripture during Jesus' time they were part of the culture of religion in which our faith was born. The churches early Old Testament was the greek text which included them, and i prefer to have them in my Bible and am very happy that the NIB includes them. Hopefully a few more will take the leap of faith and get this work into production. I will try to post another sample later this week. By no means is this some perfect commentary but as far as I am concerned it would be enough if it is all I had, and I can not wait to get it on my computer be it in Olivetree or Logos.

    -dan

     

  • Dan Francis
    Dan Francis Member Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭


    AMOS 5:21-27, WHAT DOES GOD REQUIRE?

    Link to:  

     

     

    <Page 393 Ends><Page 394 Begins>

     

    COMMENTARY

    Amos has said that frequenting the sanctuaries is equivalent to rebellion against God and seems to have ridiculed the offering of sacrifice (4:4-5). He has also claimed that God is not to be found at Bethel, Gilgal, or Beersheba (5:4-5). Now comes a fierce divine rejection of the way the Israelites have been worshiping. God wants no part of their holy days, of their offerings, or even of their hymns of praise. God wants justice and righteousness.

    Is the subject of the passage what is wrong with worship? It was interpreted that way for many years, along with similar texts in Isa 1:10-17; Jer 7:21-23; Hos 6:6; and Mic 6:6-8. It was said that the prophets condemned ritual in favor of pure, spiritual worship, but that interpretation stumbles over the fact that Isaiah also says that God even refuses to hear the prayers of his contemporaries. There is general agreement now that the point of these passages is not what is wrong with worship, but what is wrong with the worshipers. “Let justice roll down like waters” (v. 24) and the comparable conclusions in the other prophets are statements of the preconditions for acceptable worship. Amos does not intend to replace ritual with social action. Rather, what goes on in society must correspond to what is said and done in worship. Amos tells us that God does not accept the worship of those who show no interest in justice in their daily lives.

    Once again his vigorous use of imagery appears. Many of the wadis in Israel are dry most of the year, and when it rains they are subject to flash flooding. The wadis are no metaphor to use for justice in the gate, then. Justice should be like the constant streams whose life-giving water can be depended on every day of the year. The verb in v. 24 is a jussive—i.e., it has the force of an impersonal command. No promise, however conditional, is attached to it. It stands, near the very middle of the book, as God’s unconditional requirement, if life is to continue. To extend Amos’s metaphor, since Israel has failed to maintain justice, it will be the torrent in which they will drown (cf. 5:8b).

    The last three verses of the chapter are fraught with problems. Some scholars think v. 26 belongs with v. 25; others read it with v. 27. The tense of the verb in v. 26 has been taken as past, present, or future; and v. 27 has been read as both past and future. If the question in v. 25 calls for a negative answer (and it is hard to read it otherwise), how can that be correlated with the Pentateuch, which speaks of many sacrifices in the wilderness? Harper records eight different explanations of the verse. The translation of v. 26 remains uncertain, especially the translation of twks (sikkût) and @wyk (kiyyûn). Harper lists six different interpretations of this verse.51

    Since Jer 7:21-22 also seems to speak of wilderness as a time without sacrifice, there may have been an alternate wilderness tradition in Israel, now preserved in only these two places. Amos and Jeremiah may have been referring to a belief that the sacrificial cult was largely of Canaanite origin, as in fact seems to be true. An alternate reading takes the question to mean, “Was it only sacrifice that you brought me . . . ?”

    The ancient versions all translate v. 26 in the past tense (cf. Acts 7:42-43), but there is no other hint in the OT that Israel remembered having practiced this kind of idolatry in the wilderness. It might refer instead to the immediate past, to idolatry in Samaria, and this is probably what the NIV intends. Other interpreters take it as an interrogative past tense, continuing the rhetorical question of v. 25 and expecting a negative answer: “Did you lift up . . . ?” But most translators connect it instead with v. 27, making it a reference to the future, to carrying idols with them into exile. The two most commonly suggested renderings of the words sikkût and kiyyûn are represented by the NRSV and the NIV translations. The NIV takes the words to be derivatives of common Hebrew nouns, while the NRSV considers them to be distorted forms of the names of Assyrian astral deities. If “Sakkuth” and “Kaiwan” are the correct readings, this raises the question of how early the northern kingdom became acquainted with those cults. Neither approach solves all the problems of this verse, which remains the most difficult one in the book of Amos.

    The chapter concludes with the explicit threat

     

     

    <Page 394 Ends><Page 395 Begins>

    of exile. “Beyond Damascus” need not be taken as a specific reference to Assyria as the enemy, since Assyria is never mentioned elsewhere in the book. At that time, “beyond Damascus” was just the most likely direction for a deportation from the northern kingdom to take place.

    REFLECTIONS

    By this point in the book it has become clear that Amos expects the disaster that God will bring upon Israel in the near future to be so extensive that Amos must speak of the nation’s death. It is a terrible thought. Consider any of the small nations of the world today, and imagine being a citizen of a neighboring country and going to that small nation to inform its people that soon they would no longer exist as a nation. Worse yet, imagine trying to convince them that this was the will of their god. How could such destruction and death be the will of any god? That is the theological problem Amos and the other pre-exilic prophets created for their people, and the problem remains for us. Let us try to read Amos this way, and then let the rest of Scripture add something to Amos.

    Amos was convinced that Israel soon would fall prey to an invader. Israelite theology had taught him to see the hand of God in every event, but he might have theologized that in two different ways. The invader (and Amos does not seem to know it will be Assyria) might be seen as the enemy of God and God’s people, and Amos might have spoken of God’s forthcoming judgment of them, as later prophets did in their oracles against the nations (e.g., Isa 37:22-29; Jeremiah 50–51; Ezekiel 25). Instead, Amos was inspired to recognize that the daily life of Israel had completely given up the ethical standards of the Yahwistic religion. Whether he thought in terms of “covenant theology” or not, he clearly saw the treatment of the poor in Israel as a fundamental rejection of the relationship that Yahweh had established with Israel, which required obedience not only in worship but also in the maintenance of a just society. We might describe his evaluation in this way: It was an unhealthy society, so sick it could not survive much longer. But Amos spoke in terms of God’s activity in history. The death of Israel would not be from “natural causes”; it would be God’s work. We must not then conclude that God prefers to work via killing and burning.52 God allows human beings to chart their own courses, then finds ways to work through, or in spite of, what they do. The Assyrians would have come against Israel anyway, for their own reasons, and the later prophets will insist that God judges the Assyrians for their cruelty, but God has also found ways to accomplish the divine purpose through even such sinful acts. Amos shows no indication that he knows what that ultimate purpose is (unless 9:15-16 is a hint of it). He speaks of death, but later prophets saw beyond that to new life to be created by God even out of the turmoil and agony of empire building in the ancient Near East.

    1. The Meaning of Exile. Theological reflection on the place the exiling of God’s people plays in the message of the whole Bible leads to conclusions that reach far beyond disasters that occurred in the eighth and sixth centuries BCE. Amos dealt with more than an eighthcentury crisis. His message is in continuity with the New Testament’s depiction of the predicament of humanity as a whole, at least as Paul described it. At first, Israel’s loss of the promised land does not appear to be a subject of any interest to New Testament writers, but there is a trajectory concerning the human dilemma and what God is doing about it that can be traced briefly here, from Amos to Paul.

    Israel’s earlier traditions may have included threats of insecurity and loss of prosperity in the promised land if the people disobeyed the God who had given it to them.53 Amos, however,

     

     

    <Page 395 Ends><Page 396 Begins>

    seems to have been the first to claim that they might lose the land itself. He speaks of exile, the deportation of most of the Israelite population to some other country, in 4:3; 5:5, 27; 6:7; 7:11, 17; 9:4. A promise of restoration from exile appears at the very end of the book (9:15), but that may not be as old as the time of Amos, for a theology of exile and restoration is not developed within the book. When the book was produced the idea was evidently still too new to have produced any theological reflection. A short time later, Hosea found a way to speak of it in terms of Israelite theology: Exile becomes a reversal of the classical history of salvation—back to the wilderness (2:14; 12:9) or back to Egypt (Hos 8:13; 9:3, 6). Even though Hosea knew that the actual physical location of the exile would be Assyria (Hos 9:3; 11:11), theologically it would be the negation of the exodus. That raised the question as to whether there might be a new exodus (Hos 11:10-11), a theme developed later by Judean prophets (e.g., Ezek 20:33-44; Isaiah 43).

    Deportations, the scattering of whole populations, have occurred again and again throughout history. The twentieth century produced the term “political refugee” as a new way of speaking of exile. Only one such exile has produced a new people, committed to living in obedience to their God, with a Scripture that was the direct result of that exile experience, and that was the Judean exile in Babylonia during the sixth century. Amos does not foresee that, however. The exile of the northern kingdom populace produced no such results, but the Judean prophets who followed Amos saw exile as death, as he did. That God must work through death—of a nation historically; of the Son of God on the cross; or of the sinful self, as Paul put it (Rom 6:4; 7:4; 8:10; cf. Col 2:11-14)—is one of the great mysteries of our troubled relationship with God, which Amos puts on our theological agenda. The New Testament insists that the question is not, Was Israel so bad they had to die? Neither was it, How could the first-century Jews be so bad that Jesus had to die? The question is, What is so wrong with us that Paul must speak of God’s work on our behalf as calling for us to die and rise with Christ? Amos already anticipates that question.

    2. Justice as the Basis for a Healthy Society. Justice is probably the word most often associated with Amos because of 5:24, but the word itself occurs only in 5:7, 15, 24; 6:12. Without question, it is the perversion of justice that Amos has diagnosed as the major cause of Israel’s fatal illness. This has brought the book out of its relative obscurity in Jewish and Christian history, with the rise of the social gospel late in the nineteenth century and of liberation theology late in the twentieth. Amos should not be distorted into a social gospel tract, however, for Amos was not a reformer; neither was he a liberation theologian, for “the end has come upon my people Israel” is a strange kind of liberation.

    The intensity of his condemnation of the oppression of the poor and the weak has rightly been taken to heart by reformers, however. Any society that can be diagnosed the way Amos saw the northern kingdom can truthfully be said to be one that will not continue to provide abundance for the few at the expense of the many for very long. We are likely to think first of the deficiencies of economic systems, because of the Marxist critique of capitalism and then the failure of Marxist systems; but it is important to notice the strong emphasis Amos puts on failures of the legal system. We are living in a time when respect for legal systems is breaking down, because those systems obviously are not working as they should. The prophets, beginning with Amos, had in Israelite tradition a legal system based on principles of equality to which they could appeal. They were not creating new ethical standards, but were holding up the failures of the present order against the standards of law, which were being widely ignored. Here is a parallel between us and the prophets. Western civilization also has such a legal tradition, which can in fact be traced back in part to the Old Testament. The prophets challenge us not to proclaim the end is near because of our current failures, but to continue to remind our society of our classical principles of justice and to expose the failures to put them into practice, which still leave the poor and the weak without justice.

     

     

    <Page 396 Ends><Page 397 Begins>

     

    Amos has no program for change; it was too late for that. He offers an explanation of what has gone wrong and why it is so wrong that God must intervene in a drastic way. Later generations would see that he was right when he said the end was near, and they would accept his explanation of it as true. For them his words became an imperative to take his advocacy of the law with the utmost seriousness, as they saw what failure to establish justice had done. The exilic and post-exilic Jewish communities set about to make sure their society was such that no prophet like Amos need rise again. As long as we are not convinced it is too late and believe we still have a chance, we also should read the book the way those exiles read Amos—as a challenge not to make the mistake ancient Israel made.

     

     

    <Page 397 Ends><Page 398 Begins>

  • Dan Francis
    Dan Francis Member Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭


    Acts 20:17-38, PAUL’S SPEECH OF SUCCESSION

     

                                     <Page 279 Ends><Page 280 Begins>

     

     

    COMMENTARY

    Paul’s speech to the Ephesian elders at Miletus brings to fitting conclusion his controversial mission to the city of Ephesus. Because it is his only speech addressed to believers, it carries paradigmatic value for the readers of Acts. We may insinuate what Paul says to the Ephesian elders into other stories in which Paul makes pastoral house calls to organize and encourage fledgling Christian congregations. His sermon topics concerning Christian leadership and character, in which he is exemplary, are particularly relevant themes of Paul’s ongoing mentoring ministry.

    S. Walton has noted the centrality of the Miletus discourse to the ongoing debate over whether Luke used any of Paul’s letters when writing Acts.643 In contrast to Paul’s missionary speeches or legal briefs, this one addresses a pastoral setting similar to his letters, many of which convey similar concerns and interests.644 For this reason an analysis of this speech may prove to have special importance in understanding the relationship between the Paul of Acts and the Pauline letters.645 All the speeches of Acts are composed by Luke, and this one in particular is a piece of his finished portrait of Paul; however, its topics and theological conception are substantially Pauline,646 so much so that C. Hemer thinks it possible to consider it Luke’s précis of Paul’s actual words, of which Luke was an auditor.647 While the majority of modern commentators remain uncertain about whether Luke witnessed this event or had direct access to any of his letters, they concur that he at the very least used Pauline sources to compose a speech that substantially agrees with the Pauline letters in its portrait of Paul and presentation of his message.648 What must be added to this conclusion, however, is that Luke conveys an idealized representation of a canonical Paul whose Miletus

     

     

                                     <Page 280 Ends><Page 281 Begins>

     

    message he intends to function as formative of Christian mission well into the future.649 

    The question of the speech’s literary genre is also pertinent to any discussion of its wider role within the NT canon. There is virtual unanimity among commentators that this is Paul’s farewell speech, serving to publish his “last will and testament” to a gathering of close associates and friends.650 There is one problem with this consensus: Paul does not die in Acts. For this reason, I am inclined to consider this speech more narrowly as a “speech of succession,” occasioned by Paul’s departure from Ephesus when it is appropriate to charge newly appointed leaders to continue his work in his absence. In this sense, it functions within Acts in a manner similar to the opening narrative, where details of the apostolic succession of Jesus are given (see 1:3-14; also 12:1-17; cf. Luke 22:14-38; 24:36-53).651 In that earlier story, Jesus prepares his apostles for their future ministry in light of his departure (1) by reviewing and interpreting his past suffering, proofs of his resurrection (cf. 20:7-12), and his message of God’s kingdom (see 1:3); (2) against the horizon of his future ascension/departure from them (1:2); (3) and in retrospect of John’s promise of the Spirit (1:4-5), (4) the Lord charges his apostles to bring a Spirit-empowered witness of him to restore Israel as a light to the nations (1:6-8). (5) The succession is completed with Jesus’ departure into the heavens (1:9-11). The purpose of Jesus’ final speech to his apostles is not to bid them farewell but to commission them for a future mission that continues what he has begun to do and to say as Messiah (see 1:1).652 

    If the interpreter considers Paul’s Miletus speech and departure as roughly analogous in form and function to the Lord’s final speech to his apostles, then the following sketch of topics emerges (see below):653 (1) Paul rehearses his past ministry, relating his suffering and testimony (20:18b-20) (2) against the horizon of his future departure from them (20:21-25) and (3) in retrospect of his ministry among them (20:26-27). (4) Paul then charges the Ephesian elders to care for the church of God (20:28-35). (5) The succession is completed with Paul’s departure from them (20:36-38). Paul’s purpose is pastoral preparation; his aim is to equip his successors to continue what he has begun to do and say in Ephesus, knowing that his departure from the city and its Christian congregation is now final (20:25).

    These various literary and redactional conclusions point to the value of this speech in framing an approach to Paul’s epistolary witness. What the Paul of Acts says to his successors in Asia forms a rhetorical ethos that cultivates the living reader’s confidence in his exemplary persona and trustworthy instruction and has lasting importance for the church catholic in every generation. By extension, then, if the Paul of Acts has lasting importance as the spiritual exemplar and theological mentor of God’s people, then the Pauline letters supply his theological primer and personal testimony to their living readers who are confident of his lasting importance in their Christian formation. In this regard, the themes of his speech suggest touch-points with his letters that help to fashion a coherent theological understanding of their collective witness to “the whole counsel of God”–for example, faithful and humble leadership, costly suffering of consecrated service to God, congregational welfare over personal gain, threats against the church.654 

    Paul’s discourse also concerns those who are responsible for transmitting and interpreting his legacy to others in his absence. His previous mission in Ephesus laid a foundation, and his gospel defined its theological boundaries; yet, this deposit of God’s grace is under constant threat, and spiritual vigilance is required of those who are custodians of it. These Pauline inheritors are charged to imitate their mentor’s faithfulness no matter the cost, without which his precious legacy has no future. By extension, if the Pauline letters are the textual precipitate of Paul’s legacy, then their future in the church is predicated on faithful interpreters who firmly embrace Paul’s testimony to

     

     

                                     <Page 281 Ends><Page 282 Begins>

     

    God’s grace and imitate his faithful service to God’s calling. The responsibility of interpreting Paul for the next generation of believers is no longer a matter of casting lots or of holding ecclesial office, but of good character and orthodox belief in faithful imitation of Paul.

    20:17-18a.  This brief introduction to the speech sets its stage and tone: Paul “sent a message” (metakalevw metakaleo) to Ephesus asking that the “elders [presbuvteroi presbyteroi] of the church” meet with him in Miletus. Luke assumes that a council of elders leads in the formation of Christian congregations from the very beginning of the mission to the nations (see 11:30; 14:23; 15:6; 16:4). The use of metakaleo suggests that this is a meeting according to God’s plans, which gives it an air of importance (see 10:32). 

    20:18b-27.  The first half of Paul’s speech to the Ephesian elders concentrates their attention on his legacy. It is enclosed by an apologia of his past ministry at Ephesus, which he characterizes as faithful both to his prophetic calling (vv. 18b-21) and to his congregants (vv. 26-27). Sandwiched between is a prophecy of his future suffering in Jerusalem (vv. 22-24) and an assertion on this basis that he will not return to Ephesus (v. 25).

    20:18b-21.  In a single Greek sentence, the Paul of Acts defends his Asian mission, centered in Ephesus, in two integral movements. The first appeals to the entire body of evidence of “how I lived among you” (cf. 1 Thess 2:1-2; 5:10-11; Phil 4:15)–a life characterized by humble service to the Lord and by costly endurance of “the plots of the Jews” (v. 19; cf. 2 Cor 1:3-11). While testimony of his “humility”655 reflects Paul’s commentary on his inward affections (cf. 2 Cor 10:1; 11:7; 1 Thess 2:6), the appeal to consider his suffering, which resulted from various plots against him, is more empirical and invites his auditors to evaluate the hard evidence in his favor. The reader too can participate in this review by recalling the narrative of his Ephesian mission in consideration of Paul’s struggles there (see 19:8-10; 20:3; cf. 20:33-34).

    The second broad movement concerns the disposition of his pastoral obligations to the Ephesian church. Paul’s description of prophetic tasks performed is exemplary of Christian leadership for the church’s future; he will later recall these same images as characteristic of ministry that continues his legacy in his absence. He asserts that in general he “did not shrink from doing anything helpful.” On the one hand, Paul does not shrink from his calling to teach the congregations (“house to house”; see 15:16-17; cf. Rom 16:5; Phlm 21) his mission has founded–unlike Judas, for example, whose betrayal of Jesus was a repudiation of his divine appointment to care for the messianic community (1:16b-17). On the other hand, Paul does not shrink from the message he publicly proclaims “to Jews and Greeks about repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus” (v. 21; cf. Rom 10:8-13). Not only is there a practical apostasy that Paul avoids in his regular ministry among believing households; there is also a theological apostasy that Paul avoids in defending the truth claims of the gospel, which he summarizes by the Lukan catchwords “repentance” and “faith.”

    20:22-24. The shift from apologia (retrospect) to prophecy (prospect) is signaled by the appearance of the phrase kai; nu`n ijdou` (kai nyn idou, “And now I . . .”). Even as Paul’s faithfulness is made evident by his costly devotion to the tasks of the prophet-like-Jesus, he is also faithful or “captive/compelled” (v. 22) to/by what the “Holy Spirit testifies to me in every city that imprisonment and persecutions are waiting for me” (v. 23). Details of a particular revelation from the Spirit to Paul are not mentioned. In fact, he claims that he does not know what will happen to him in Jerusalem (cf. Rom 15:30-32). Commentators have long noted the parallelism between Paul’s prophecy and the Lord’s prediction of his passion in Jerusalem. While this is certainly characteristic of Luke’s typological shaping of his narrative and perhaps is a subtext of this part of Paul’s speech, the prophecy is still much too vague to assert that Paul’s final Jerusalem visit is of a type with the Lord’s. Paul did not die there, nor does he know what will happen to him there.

    That he should expect suffering to await him in

     

     

                                     <Page 282 Ends><Page 283 Begins>

     

    Jerusalem is no different from what he expects in every city, since the Lord prophesied that his mission would result in Paul’s suffering for his sake (see 9:15-16). This is the inevitable effect according to Acts of preaching a message that he characterizes as “the good news of God’s grace” (see 15:7-11). Further, it seems more likely that the compelling motive of Paul’s journey to Jerusalem is as a religious pilgrim in keeping with his observance of Jewish practices (see v. 16) and not as a Christian martyr. While he can claim that he does not count his life of any value (v. 24a; cf. 2 Cor 4:7—5:10; 6:4-10; Phil 1:19-26), the revelation to which he refers must be the vision in the Spirit that indicates that Rome is the city of his destiny (see 19:21). Only Paul and the readers of Acts know that it will be Rome, with a layover in Jerusalem, where Paul will “finish my course and the ministry that I received from the Lord Jesus” (v. 24b; cf. 1 Cor 9:24; Phil 3:8-13).

    20:25.  For these reasons, Paul’s statement of departure does not predict a Jerusalem “passion.” His emphatic assertion that none of them will ever see his face again must be understood in terms of his earlier vision of a new mission field in Rome, which therefore requires his departure from and a succession of his leadership in Asia. That his farewell concerns the Roman mission and not a Jerusalem passion is indicated by repetition of the central task of his prophetic vocation in Ephesus–“proclaiming the kingdom” (see 19:8)–and recalls Jesus’ paradigmatic prophecy about the inspired witness of his successors that includes teaching about God’s kingdom (see 1:3, 6; 14:22; 28:23, 31; cf. 1 Cor 6:9-11; 1 Thess 2:12; Col 1:13) at the “end of the earth” (see 1:8).

    20:26-27.  Paul concludes his personal reminiscence by again declaring that he did not shrink from his prophetic obligations in proclaiming the gospel in Ephesus (see v. 20). The striking declaration that he “is not responsible for the blood of any of you” (v. 26; cf. 1 Thess 2:10) recalls his earlier indictment of unrepentant Jews in Corinth (see 18:6), which presumed that they no longer could excuse their rejection of God’s gospel on grounds of their ignorance of its claims and Scripture’s warrants. Paul’s preaching ministry has clarified God’s script of salvation’s history and so to refuse his message is to refuse God’s invitation. In this new setting in which Paul addresses believers the issue is not the salvation of his auditors but their assumption of Paul’s mission in Ephesus. Whether or not the foundation he has laid in that city continues to be built upon is no longer in his hands; his departure signals the official beginning of their own ministry in his absence.

    The addition of a final summary of Paul’s gospel, “the whole purpose [boulhv boule] of God” (v. 27; cf. Eph 1:11), delineates the theological boundaries of this ecclesial foundation. Elsewhere in Acts boule denotes God’s sovereign purpose that is worked out in the Messiah’s mission (see 2:22-23) and now in the church’s mission under the aegis of the Holy Spirit (see 4:28; 5:38; 13:36; cf. Gal 1:4; Eph 1:9, 11). There is no Pauline teaching that deviates from God’s boule; therefore, Pauline teaching is “canonical” in congregations founded by him. The implication is that God views any deviation from his catechesis as apostasy and subversive of God’s scripted plans for salvation’s progress into the future of Ephesus.

    20:28-35.  The second half of Paul’s speech shifts from a description of his past and prophecy of his future to consideration of his succession in Ephesus by the elders of the church. He charges the elders (here called ejpivskopoi [episkopoi, “overseers”] without change of meaning) with their ministry in ever-vigilant expectation of coming dangers (vv. 28-31). He goes on to exhort them to follow his and the Lord’s example of leadership within a community of goods that cares for the poor (vv. 32-35).

    20:28-31.  Paul’s rehearsal of the dangers that will face the elders following his departure is enclosed by his charge for them to “keep watch [prosevcw prosecho] over yourselves and over all the flock” (v. 28; see also 5:35b) and to “be alert” (grhgorevw gregoreo) to his pastoral example (v. 31). The image of a shepherd watching over his flock is a familiar biblical metaphor of the leader’s provident care over Israel (cf. Exod 10:28; Deut 4:9; Ezek 14:11-12; Jer 23:2; Hos 5:1; Mic 5:4; John 10:11-16; 21:17-17) of which the Paul of Acts is exemplary. He presumes their competence to do so because “the Holy Spirit has made you overseers,” which not only suggests the mediation of the Spirit’s power for ministry (see 1:8) but also the Spirit’s authorizing “mark” in their lives that others have recognized (see 6:3-4).

    While the role of elders to pastor “the church of

     

     

                                     <Page 283 Ends><Page 284 Begins>

     

    God” seems clear enough, it is confused by the following relative clause “he bought [peripoievw peripoieo] with his own blood [dia; tou` ai{mato" tou` ijdivou dia tou haimatos tou idiou],” which is obscure both in plain meaning and in its purpose in the speech.656 That God acquires (peripoieo) a people by saving them from destruction is a biblical idea and probably Paul’s meaning here (cf. Ps 74:2). But that God did so by means of God’s own blood is very difficult to understand theologically. A few commentators think that i[dio" (idios) connotes here a term of endearment for a near relative, or “one’s own” (= one’s own Son, so the NRSV). Others suggest that Luke combines fragments from two Pauline formulae about “the church of God” and “Christ purchases the church for God by his blood” but in a jumbled way. He may have been grammatically careless at this point because of his lack of theological interest in the efficacy of Christ’s blood in saving people from their sins. Even if Acts does include a theology of the cross elsewhere, it is clearly not of the robust variety found in the Pauline letters.657 In any case, the general sense of Paul’s vague phrase is that the church has extraordinary value for God and for this reason the elders must take their calling with utmost seriousness.

    The ethos shaped by the inclusio of Paul’s charge to pastoral action is of a countercultural community whose beliefs and practices are set against the social norm–which is certainly in line with the preceding narrative of his controversial Ephesian mission. Paul recognizes that his departure will occasion a serious challenge to the purity of that ethos. Two potential dangers are noted: False teachers will come as “savage wolves” from the outside (v. 29) and “from your own group” inside the flock of God (v. 30). The catchphrase echoes the Lord’s reference to “savage wolves” (Matt 7:15; 10:16; Luke 10:3; John 10:12), which connotes “false prophets” within Israel–teachers of Israel who reject the messianic word. The phrase has a similar meaning in Paul’s speech, except that now it is his proclamation about God’s kingdom that establishes a rule of faith that measures doctrinal purity within the church: The “savage wolf” is any teacher who distorts the truth of Pauline teaching (see 13:10; cf. Phil 2:15).

    Paul’s warning of false teaching within the church is unusual in Acts. The repetition and variety of references to Paul’s teaching in this speech underscore the importance of theological purity in maintaining and transmitting the Pauline legacy to the next generation of believers. Further, Paul calls upon the memory of the elders to remember “that for three years I did not cease night or day to warn everyone with tears” (v. 30; cf. 2 Cor 2:4). Luke’s characteristic use of hyperbole again underscores the value of Paul’s personal example, which also carries canonical status within the ongoing community.

    20:32-35.  A rhetorical shift from warning to encouragement is once again marked by the kai; nu`n (kai nyn, “and now”)–“and now” Paul’s concern for an effective succession is made more apparent to his auditors. These final lines of the speech combine blessing (v. 32) and exhortation (vv. 33-35) similar to the benedictions of Pauline letters. The main thread of Paul’s speech remains fixed on his “message” (lovgo" logos) of God’s grace (see v. 24; see also 14:3; 5:32). The edifying connection of Paul’s gospel with the “building up” (oijkodomevw oikodomeo) of his successors (cf. Rom 14:19; 15:2; 1 Cor 3:9; 8:1; 10:23; 14:3-5, 12, 17, 26; 2 Cor 10:8; 12:19; 13:10; 1 Thess 5:11) for their future “inheritance” (cf. Rom 15:16; 1 Cor 6:9-11; Gal 3:18; 4:30; 5:21; Titus 3:7) reflects Pauline themes expressed in Lukan vocabulary.

    In the context of Acts, however, the use of oikodomeo to encourage the spiritual formation (“build up”) of elders glosses the earlier use of ajnoikodomevw (anoikodomeo) in Amos’s prophecy of a “rebuilt” Israel (see 15:16) to remind the reader that God continues to fulfill the promise of a restored Israel’s mission to the nations (see 15:17-18) even in Paul’s absence through the ministry of spiritually restored elders. In this regard, Paul’s concluding admonitions reflect the concerns expressed by James concerning whether the mixing of uncircumcised Gentiles with repentant Jews in the synagogues of the diaspora will result in the attenuation of the Jewish legacy within the church (see 15:20-21, 29). Even though Acts has carefully

     

     

                                     <Page 284 Ends><Page 285 Begins>

     

    depicted Paul and, therefore, his legacy as Jewish, the reader should note the implied connection between his final exhortations and the cautionary notes sounded earlier by James regarding the social solidarity of the community. If the principal concerns of James, however, are to maintain this sense of solidarity by abstaining from the pollutants of pagan religion, Paul’s concerns are more ethical and echo the social practices of the community of goods (see 2:42-47) within an acquisitive culture such as Ephesus (see 19:25b-27): The dispossession rather than “coveting” of property is the measure of one’s spiritual authority (v. 33; see 4:32-35);658 and working with one’s hands to earn one’s keep (v. 34; see also 18:3) is motivated by the evident need “to support the weak” (v. 35). As with the content of what is taught, these moral norms are in imitation of Paul and obedient to the Lord’s command, “It is more blessed to give than to receive.”659 The purpose of appealing to Jesus is to underscore the practical truth that the community’s solidarity is only as strong as its commitment to its own “weak” (see 4:32-35; 6:1-7). Finally it  is not because of his example but because of the command of Jesus that Paul can also say that “we must [dei` dei]”–a divine necessity–help the poor and the powerless. This practice remains the social mark of the community of goods in whose life the kingdom of God has been restored by God’s grace.

    20:36-38.  This concluding panel casts a poignant image of a fond farewell. The sheer weight of emotive terms Luke layers into this scene–“much weeping,” “embraced Paul and kissed him,” “grieving especially because . . . they would not see him again”–highlights the theme of Paul’s departure from Ephesus in the speech itself (vv. 25, 29) and all that is staked out because of it. It is a mistake to conclude, however, that since Luke writes from a perspective after Paul’s death he must, therefore, be writing about Paul’s death. As has been argued earlier, the Paul of Acts addresses the importance of an orderly succession of ministry in Ephesus that is occasioned by Paul’s departure for a new mission elsewhere (= Rome; see 19:21) and not by his so-called passion in Jerusalem. The finality of Paul’s farewell, when “they brought him to the ship,” simply makes more urgent the elders’ (and the reader’s) compliance with his instructions.

    REFLECTIONS

    “Keep watch over yourselves and over all the flock, of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers” (20:28 NRSV). There are few biblical passages more instructive of the role and character of church leaders than this one. Both in what he assumes and by what he says, Paul supplies the church of every age with the essential role model and curriculum for a course in leadership training. In describing his own trials and temptations, Paul insinuates himself into his successors minds as their prophetic exemplar: They, too, will encounter similar attacks both within and outside the congregation and must deal with them as he has. Paul assumes in his absence the continuing presence of the Holy Spirit in the congregation–the Spirit who both calls and, therefore, enables its leaders to survive these attacks and to flourish as a result.

    The primary marks of the Christian leader correspond to the primary problems Paul anticipates will always threaten the Christian leader: purity, possessions, power. The peculiar definition of each envisages the nature of the countercultural community that these people have been called to lead. Those who are called by God and nurtured by God’s Spirit to lead a people belonging to God should neither be trained nor be measured by secular standards of leadership. Thus, for example, the quotient of one’s purity is measured by faithful ministry of the word of God (20:20). Especially in the Pastoral Epistles, congregational leaders are instructed to teach “sound (or “healthy”) doctrine” to others, ever alert to avoid theological error and to squelch its

     

     

                                     <Page 285 Ends><Page 286 Begins>

     

    dissemination from other sources (cf. 1 Tim 1:3-7, 10-11; 4:6-10; 2 Tim 1:8-14; 2:2; 3:1-9; Titus 1:9-11). The effectiveness of the gospel to initiate people into life with God is subverted by theological compromise. Beware of the “wolves” within and without the congregation who might threaten the purity of our rule of apostolic faith (cf. 20:29-30).

    The messianic career of Jesus is the subtext of Paul’s speech: He is the model the Paul of Acts follows (cf. 20:24), who in turn bids the Ephesian elders to follow his example (20:31). Strategically, then, he concludes by quoting Jesus as saying, “It is more blessed to give than to receive” (20:35). Perhaps of greater practical importance to Paul than doctrinal purity is how leaders use their possessions (cf. 1 Tim 6:3-10, 17-19). No interpreter of Acts denies the importance of intelligent and articulate preaching (see 19:16-34); yet, Luke knows that the world will consider such preaching specious if the church says one thing and lives another. The abstract truth of a word about God’s grace is tested in the real world by whether or not the handling of our goods is also gracious rather than greedy. The motive of Christian ministry must never be monetary and momentary. Those put in charge of the spiritual formation of believers must not covet their possessions (20:33); indeed, they are to make money to redistribute it among the poor (20:34-35). In the simplicity of one’s lifestyle and the sharing of one’s goods the truth of God’s generosity toward us all is made more concrete.

    The third mark of the Christian leader according to Paul is how that person handles personal power. Most of us can rehearse with regret the moral failure of various Christian leaders. The media sometimes gloat in telling of these failures as though it impugns the integrity of the church’s witness in the world. Perhaps it does. All too often these failures are prompted by an “arrogance of power” when those placed in positions of influence have used their high standing to coerce others to do their bidding. The leader who imitates Paul’s example is drawn to ministry by the Holy Spirit to serve the redemptive interests of God and the needs of God’s flock. The prophetic leader of a countercultural community is one who serves others and sets aside as unseemly the ambitious acquisition of power or pretension of self-importance. The disturbing effect Jesus had on the power brokers of his world was due to the presence of God in places where life was being shaped by norms and values contrary to God’s kingdom. The kingdom preaching of the incorrigible Paul had a similar effect on the rich and famous of his day (cf. 20:22-25). So it is in our day that the mark of competent leadership is the disturbing effect a faithful life will have on those whose definition of power places personal ambition over justice and grace as God has defined it in Jesus.

  • Mathew Voth
    Mathew Voth Member Posts: 287 ✭✭

    Just a warning. We might not need to buy it by the time you're done ;)

  • Just a warning. We might not need to buy it by the time you're done ;)

    Since => New Interpreter's Bible (12 vols.) (NIB) has 11,591 pages, hoping enough pre-orders are placed before 5 % (579 pages) are posted for forum promotion.

    Once enough pre-orders are placed to change status from "Almost There" to "Under Development"; not know how long will take to prepare this resource for shipping.

    Keep Smiling [:)]

  • Dan Francis
    Dan Francis Member Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭

    " rel="nofollow">Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :) said:

    Once enough pre-orders are placed to change status from "Almost There" to "Under Development"; not know how long will take to prepare this resource for shipping.

     

    Who knows there, could be a few weeks to a few months, all depends on the place it gets in the queue.

    -dan

  • Noticed Logos tweet: The New Interpreter's Bible (12 vols.) is now available on Pre-Pub! http://lgs.to/wWfGbR

    image

    Keep Smiling [:)]

  • Brother Mark
    Brother Mark Member Posts: 945 ✭✭

    " rel="nofollow">Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :) said:

    Noticed Logos tweet: The New Interpreter's Bible (12 vols.) is now available on Pre-Pub! http://lgs.to/wWfGbR

    Allow me to add my congratulations and hearty expression of gratitude to Logos for placing this resource in the soon-to-be-available category (and ending the siege engine of lengthy excerpts on the forums!).  

    [<:o)]  [^]

    "I read dead people..."

  • Noticed NIB progress is a bit closer to changing status from "Almost There" to "Under Development"; more pre-orders are needed.

    Logos January Newswire included NIB pre-publication price drop, a rare occurrence.

    Keep Smiling [:)]

  • JAIN THOMAS
    JAIN THOMAS Member Posts: 50 ✭✭

    I really need this resource because I love this so much

  • Dan Francis
    Dan Francis Member Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭

    I really need this resource because I love this so much

    I KNOW EXACTLY HOW YOU FEEL…. Hopefully enough people will decided to give it a chance to get it into pre pub ASAP...


    ECCLESIASTES 3:1-15, REFLECTIONS ON THE MEANING OF TIME

    Link to:  

     

     

                                       <Page 304 Ends><Page 305 Begins>

    COMMENTARY

    3:1-8. This is perhaps the best-known passage in Ecclesiastes, the beloved list of things for which there is a proper time. The topic of time was a favorite one with wisdom writers. In Sir 39:16-34, as also elsewhere in Qohelet (e.g., Eccl 3:14-15; 6:10), time marches strictly to God’s command. But not here. In these verses, God plays no explicit role in setting the “seasons” and “times.” In this passage, Qohelet does not say why things occur at their appropriate times. They just do. Only as he reflects further in the enigmatic ensuing prose passage (vv. 9-15) does the Teacher invoke God’s role in the matter of time.

    The distinctive style of the passage may indicate that Qohelet drew it from another source. The seven verses 2-8 contain fourteen antitheses,56 encompassing twenty-eight experiences known to all human beings, all organized under the twofold synonymous heading, “For everything [phenomenon] there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven” (v. 1). Like 1:3-11, this pericope is simply a list of empirical observations. Except for the bracketing words “be born . . . peace,” the list offers no order of importance or any other evaluation at all other than the principle stated in the heading. None of these times and seasons is a pregnant, potential-filled kairov" kairos. The “times” are moments of human-scale appropriateness intricately interwoven with implicit cosmic orders. The first item on the list, “a time to be born, and a time to die” (v. 2), is clearly out of human hands, but the rest involve human choices. The wise person’s task evidently is to know when the right time has come and to move visibly with whatever invisible program there may be.

    In v. 3, the reference to “a time to kill and a time to heal” seems to give society two ways to respond to individual transgression. The first is capital punishment; the second is the work of physicians and other kinds of helpers to improve the life of an ailing person. Since sickness was regarded as a punishment from God, some may have thought nothing should be done for the sinner/invalid. Qohelet, however, seems to affirm the right of physicians to intervene in the sequence of cause-and-effect and to heal when it is time to do so.

    The medieval midrash Qohelet Rabbah interprets the reference to scattering and gathering stones (v. 5a) as a strict parallel to embracing (v. 5b)—i.e., both are metaphors for sexual relations. Given the fact that stichs a and b of each verse in the series are closely related to stichs c and d of each verse, this seems preferable to taking v. 5a as a reference to the preparation of a field of rocky Palestine for farming (see Isa 5:2).

    Surely the teaching that there is “a time to keep, and a time to throw away” (v. 6b) intends to do more than simply warn “pack rats” to get serious about cleaning out the attic. In a broader sense, this antithesis suggests that both prudence and providence—that boundless outpouring of help to other people—are genuine human virtues. If v. 7a refers to the ancient Israelite mourning custom of rending garments (see Gen 37:29; 2

     

     

                                       <Page 305 Ends><Page 306 Begins>

     

    Sam 13:31), then v. 7b would authorize the family to sew the rips back up again when the mourning was over. Mourning customs could also explain the coupling of v. 7ab with v. 7cd, “a time to keep silence and a time to speak,” for as Job 2:13 suggests, silence was appropriate in the presence of bereavement. If, on the other hand, the picture is of a sewing bee, even in that context silence might, from time to time, be golden. When Ben Sira thought about this subject, he too tied talk to time: “The wise remain silent until the right moment” (Sir 20:7 NRSV).

    The culminating v. 8, which raises the human experiences of love and hate, war and peace, reverses the order in the final clause, putting peace in the position of a “punch line.” Thus do peace and birth (v. 2a) bracket the entire list. By this simple device, their antitheses, death and war, are demoted to realities that, though both profound and universal, have neither the first nor the last word.

    3:9-15. In the prose section, which follows the poem of vv. 1-8, the notions of the rhythm and rightness of time are pursued further. “What gain have the workers from their toil?” the Teacher asks in v. 9. His answer takes the form of religious truth claims about human endeavor. In 1:13, the “business” that God gave human beings to do is “unhappy” or even “evil.” Not so in v. 10, because now Qohelet has supplied an important context for human striving: It all takes place within “suitable” (hpy yA peh) time. God “has made everything suitable for [NIV, beautiful in] its time” (v. 11 NRSV) and has given human beings a sense of having a place in the stately unrolling of the universal (“everything”), predetermined providential plan of God. The good news is that the (presumably) good God has provided direction, even finality, to the course of history (vv. 14-15). The bad news is that people “cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end” (v. 11). Withholding this knowledge is within the sovereign authority of God. By refusing to show the trump cards of the future, God keeps humanity—who want to know good and evil (Gen 3:22), who want to have an unassailable name (Gen 11:4), who want to compete with God—in awe and submission. It goes without saying that what cannot be known by human beings also cannot be changed by them. Verse 11 is the very epitome of one of Qohelet’s principal themes: the impossibility of knowing what is truly going on in the world (see the section “The Ideology of the Book of Ecclesiastes,” 282-85, in the Introduction; see also Eccl 6:10-12; 7:14, 27-28).

    Both the NRSV and the NIV take the much debated word !l[h (hA(olAm) in v. 11 to refer to time (NRSV, “sense of past and future”; NIV, “eternity”; cf. Eccl 3:14). Taken this way, the picture is of human creatures endowed by God with a keen consciousness of the passage of time, yet not endowed with the capacity to make any sense of it. In Murphy’s words, v. 11b “is a fantastic statement of divine sabotage.”57

    The other meaning of the word hA(olAm, “world,” has been advocated in modern times by such scholars as Ewald, Voltz, H. L. Ginsberg, and Gordis. Although the latter meaning of the word is largely a development in post-biblical Hebrew (see Sir 3:18; M. ’ Abot 4:17), Ecclesiastes uses a number of other words of which the same could be said. For Gordis, this meaning yields a teaching that reinforces his proposal that enjoyment of life is at the heart of the message of the book: “He has also placed the love of the world in men’s hearts, except that they may not discover the work God has done from beginning to end.”58 Scott relates the term back to the root sense of “that which is obscure, hidden,” and translates, “Yet he has put in their minds an enigma.”59 Whitley suggests “ignorance.”60

    In favor of viewing hA(olAm as “eternity” (NIV) are the facts that this is the usual meaning of the noun in the Hebrew Bible and that the context establishes “time” (v. 11a) as the subject under discussion. The problem is to arrive at the exact nuance of time in this sentence. “Eternity” can be misleading, too, if a reader thinks of immortality or the spiritual contemplation of divine timelessness rather than history in its most inclusive sense. The paraphrase of the NRSV suggests frustration with the One who fixed the times of all things and gave humankind a sense of that reality,

     

     

                                       <Page 306 Ends><Page 307 Begins>

     

    yet who withheld the timetable from those who might otherwise have understood it. Faced with this problem, Rankin argues for a revocalization of hA (olAm to !l[h (hA (elem), “forgetfulness.” The sense, then, would be that although God made everything excellent in its time, God also burdened people with “the inability to remember and record all the generations of human history,” thereby depriving them of the means of making history comprehensible.61

    Within the awful incomprehensibility of the big picture (v. 14), however, God has made a “gift” of the possibility of human happiness. It is a gift made to “all” (lk kol, v. 13)—a teaching that omits the deterministic reservation voiced in 5:19 and 6:12 that God “enables” only some to enjoy life. As Gordis has pointed out, Qohelet teaches that “joy is God’s great commandment for man.”62 Verses 2-13, therefore, are ethical teachings. When the Teacher says, “Be happy and enjoy . . . eat and drink and take pleasure in . . . toil” (vv. 12-13; see 2:24), he means that to accept God’s gift of life is to be obedient to the will of God.

    REFLECTIONS

    In 3:1-8, the Teacher does not describe the inexorable cycling of times as another absurdity, nor does he frame it with despair. On the contrary, he endorses it. Time is not out of joint: “For everything there is a season.” Here at last he finds solidity and dependability. It is good that there is order in life. It is good that there is a time to die that stands over and against the time of birth, for to have it any other way would be to admit that there is no order at all but only arbitrary and erratic events. In 3:1-8, the Teacher is able to affirm that the polarities within which life must be lived are both discernible and secure.

    One can wax enthusiastic about the moral possibilities of some of the items on Qohelet’s list of things for which there is a proper time. For example, that there is “a time to keep, and a time to throw away” (v. 16) invokes the two virtues of prudence and providence. It is good to know that the cosmic orders provide a place for saving against a future rainy day (even ants do it! see Prov 30:25). Qohelet seems to open the door to prudential moral behavior.

    There is also a time to throw away. Now, the virtue we call generosity is about throwing away, about the unstinting pouring out of good things on those around about. We call God’s generosity “providence”; the Bible also knows that human behavior can be providential. The idea reaches a keen point in Jesus’ difficult teaching “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt 5:48 NRSV). Taken by itself, that verse has served some people as a disastrous invitation to excessive scrupling and perfectionism. But taken in context, it is clear that the God-like perfection (i.e., “reaching the mark”) that Jesus advocates is in human giving, “throwing away.” The context of the saying in the Sermon on the Mount reads, “[God] makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?” (Matt 5:45-46 NRSV). For the Gospel writer, perfection consists in being like God in pouring out providential generosity onto others. In teaching that there is a time for divestiture, Qohelet, too, opens the door to providential moral behavior.

    Similar discussions can be advanced about the other antitheses of the poem, as if they invited the individual to be sensitive to appropriate times for action and then to act, morally, perhaps decisively, to kill, to heal, to keep silence, to speak, to love, to hate, to make war, and to make peace. However, if we read this list through the lens of predetermination, as vv. 9-15 suggest we do, a number of things change radically. First of all, there can be no quarrel with any members of the list, such as hate and war. If everything occurs on the God-given schedule, then this list cannot be weeded. Second, there is little real possibility of moral action. If a time

     

     

                                       <Page 307 Ends><Page 308 Begins>

     

    to make love is not a matter of a conscious human choice to act appropriately, but merely a matter of a timetable set forth in advance by God for organisms or even for human individuals, then there can be no question of moral agency in the lovemaking, but simply answering responses to the call of the hormones. All of the earlier remarks about perfection in giving (v. 6b) become simply nonsense. There simply comes a time to throw stuff away, no doubt because of the approach of death.

    Commentators and preachers alike have generally not wanted to consign the beautiful poem of 3:1-8 into the grim jaws of necessity, and they have warrant. The uniqueness of its style and its logical coherence invite attention to this pericope in its own terms. Even if only for heuristic reasons, much can be gained by reading it independently of context—at least of vv. 9-15—and thereby seeing it in a different light from that given it through the (tinted) lens of predetermination. If one reads the poem with the understanding that the fixed orders provide structure rather than calendar, then individual human moral decision making is possible. One can then hear in this poem a challenge to be wise, to be ethical, to discern when one’s actions are in keeping with God’s time and then to act decisively.

    Reading vv. 1-8 through a positive lens focuses on the grace inherent in the periodic structure of life. What would the gift of life be, for example, without the concomitant gift of death (v. 2)? Without the knowledge of death, life would lose its urgency and savor. Without death no poetry would be written, no music composed, no monuments raised, no children begotten. This is not to say that people actually welcome death, except those in the most dire states of emotional and physical distress. Nevertheless, a healthy acknowledgment that “there is a time to die” leads people “to improve each shining hour.” In that sense, even if taken as a list of grim necessities, Qohelet’s hymn serves as a gift of truth. And truth is grace!

    A predestinarian rereading of the poem of 3:1-8 does seem to occur in the prose context in which the poem is now placed within the book of Ecclesiastes. For example, v. 15 situates life squarely in the middle of an endlessly repetitive and rigid scheme that cancels any intention by vv. 1-8 to make place for human free will: “That which is, already has been; that which is to be, already is.” No innovation or creativity seems to be possible under those rules! Yet, the Teacher maintains a slight ambivalence even in this passage. The key to this chink in the armor of predisposition is the declaration “it is God’s gift that all should eat and drink and take pleasure in all their toil” (v. 13, italics added). Not only is this option available to all, as opposed to only those who have been specially enabled for the task of enjoyment (contra 5:19; 6:2), but also it seems to be phrased in terms of a choice. If there is a choice, there is also the possibility of moral behavior. If there is a choice, then the Teacher’s student can be as happy and as wise as the Teacher, if the student chooses gratefully to accept the small daily pleasures of life as gifts of God.

    The tension between a radical predisposition of all things into an inexorable sequence of times and seasons, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, a small but secure place for human choice has troubled adherents of Islam—that most predestinarian of the Western religions. The tension is exemplified in the seventy-third stanza of the Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám:

    With Earth’s first Clay

    They did the Last Man knead,

    And there of the Last Harvest sow’d the Seed:

    And the first Morning of Creation wrote

    What the Last Dawn of Reckoning shall read.

    In this view, nothing happens that was not already determined on the day of creation. That cannot easily be squared with any human initiative in happiness. What a way to make a world!

     

     

                                       <Page 308 Ends><Page 309 Begins>

     

    Omar’s sad yearning to reorganize the world along very different lines, expressed in his 99th stanza, might have struck a chord of response in Qohelet, too:

    Ah Love! could you and I with Him conspire

    To grasp this sorry Scheme of Things entire,

    Would not we shatter it to bits—and then

    Re-mould it nearer to the Heart’s Desire!

  • Dan Francis
    Dan Francis Member Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭


    1 MACCABEES 4:36-61, THE CLEANSING

    OF THE TEMPLE

    Link to: 

     

     

                                     <Page 69 Ends><Page 70 Begins>                                 <Page 70 Ends><Page 71 Begins>

     

     

    COMMENTARY

    After his victories, Judas goes up to Mt. Zion. The victory march to God’s holy mountain is part of an ancient mythic pattern describing the battles of the divine warrior, as exemplified in the great hymn of victory at Exodus 15. The Temple is where God dwells, the connecting point where heaven and earth meet, a stabilizing force for the maintenance of the proper order of creation. With the Temple desecrated, the world of the Jews was askew; therefore, it was essential that the Temple be reconsecrated and the world put right.

    4:36-37. The enemies have been crushed by the divine warrior (v. 30; cf. Exod 15:3). The term “dedicate” or “renew” (ejgkaini"zw egkainizo) is used to describe Solomon’s dedication of the Temple (1 Kgs 8:63; 2 Chr 7:5 LXX), the dedication of the Temple under Ezra (Ezra 6:16-17), Asa’s repair of the altar (2 Chr 15:8), and Nehemiah’s dedication of the walls of Jerusalem (Neh 12:27). The expression “go up” (ajnabai"nw anabaino) is the language of the psalms (Pss 24:3; 121:4). The wholeness of the community is emphasized as all the army goes up. So, too, when Solomon dedicated the Temple, all the people of Israel assembled (1 Kgs 8:1-5).

    4:38. The author refers to the desecration described earlier (1:31; 2:12). He draws on descriptions of a defeated city to heighten the emotional effect: Micah had foretold how the temple mount would become a wooded height (Mic 3:12), and Isaiah graphically depicted the desolate state of a destroyed land (Isa 34:13-15). The author moves from the outer court, with its altar, to the inside of the Temple, with its courts and chambers (1 Chr 9:23-24; 28:11-18).

    4:39-40. The mourning ritual is described as it was at 1 Macc 2:70; 3:47. The trumpets are to be blown to serve as a reminder before God (Num 10:1-10). The scene is reminiscent of the restoration of temple worship under Asa (2 Chr 15:8-15), when trumpets and horns were blown as the people renewed their covenant.

    4:41. The citadel, called the Akra, overlooked the sanctuary from the south (see 1:33). It was still under the enemy’s control, and thus troops were required to protect the priests purifying the Temple.

    4:42-43. The purity required of priests is described in Leviticus 21. Priests are to delight in the law, as God delights in covenant faithfulness (Mic 7:18; for a statement of such delight, see Psalm 118). The defiled stones were part of the desolating sacrilege (1:54; cf. Jer 32:34), like the stones in a leper’s house (Lev 14:40); thus they had to be put in a place that must be avoided if one is to remain ritually pure.

    4:44-46. The altar of burnt offering could not be treated like the altars of idols (Deut 12:2-3). It was sacred and yet desecrated. So, just as the remaining parts of the bull used for a purification offering are still sacred, even though they have absorbed the sanctuary’s impurities and must be put in a clean place (Lev 4:11-12), so also the altar can be kept on the temple hill—a clean place—until a prophet determines what should be done (see 14:41; Deut 18:15, 18-19).

    The phrase “until a prophet arises” has sometimes been given an eschatological interpretation because of phrases found in the Qumran literature: “[the men of holiness] should not depart from any council of the law . . . but shall be ruled by the first directives which the men of the Community began to be taught until the prophet comes and the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel.”68

     

                                     <Page 71 Ends><Page 72 Begins>

     

     In the Damascus Document from Qumran, there seem to be two moments, for God raised up “the Teacher of Righteousness,” but one still had to wait until there arose “he who teaches justice at the end of days.”69 This last figure may be identified with the eschatological high priest, the Messiah of Aaron,70 since part of the role of priests was the teaching of the law (Deut 33:10). Since the phrase at 1 Macc 4:46 (and 14:41) echoes the language of Deut 18:15, there is no need to read it as eschatological. It is also similar to the phrase found at Ezra 2:63 (= Neh 7:65), “until there should be a priest to consult Urim and Thummim” (NRSV), which has no eschatological meaning. Thus the author of 1 Maccabees expects the proper restoration of a normal functioning community, and such communities have a prophet. The phrase at 1 Maccabees envisions that when God sends a prophet, as God had promised for every generation (Deut 18:15-19), the prophet will solve all the knotty problems. The author longs for the restoration of the time when the full functioning community of Judah had priests, kings, and prophets, with the prophet functioning as a counterweight to the power of the king (see 1 and 2 Kings). It is interesting that the author of 1 Maccabees speaks of a prophetic figure rather than a priest or a teacher; perhaps it may hint at the author’s view of his own role.

    4:47-51. The altar is rebuilt according to the regulations found in Exodus and Deuteronomy (Exod 20:25; Deut 27:5-6). The temple furnishings, stripped away by Antiochus IV (1 Macc 1:21-24), are restored according to the stipulations of Exodus 25–27.

    4:52-55. On December 14, 164 BCE, the birthday of Antiochus IV (see 1:59; 2 Macc 6:7), the daily offering was resumed (Exod 29:38-42). When Daniel had asked how long the prohibition on the regular burnt offering would last, the angel had responded, “For two thousand three hundred evenings and mornings” (Dan 8:14 NRSV), or 1,150 days, about three and a half years, which corresponds roughly to the extent of the desecration of the sanctuary, according to 1 Macc 1:54–4:55. The correspondence of time was taken as an indication that God was behind the action. The rejoicing is similar to that at the dedication of Solomon’s Temple (2 Chr 5:11-14) and at the dedication of the city wall by Nehemiah (Neh 12:27). Under Judas, deliverance prospered (3:60) and is confirmed in the restoration of the temple worship.

    4:56-59. The Feast of Dedication is patterned after the Feast of Tabernacles (Lev 23:33-36) and the dedication of the Temple by Solomon (1 Kings 8) and Hezekiah (2 Chronicles 29). Mention of burnt offerings (Lev 6:8-13), sacrifices of well-being (Leviticus 3), and thanksgiving offerings (Lev 7:11-15) is also made at Hezekiah’s restoration of worship (2 Chr 29:31-35). The Temple is restored to its former glory, and the disgrace is removed (cf. 1:39-40). Judas, his brothers, and “all the assembly of Israel” (all true believers) determine that this feast should be an annual celebration.

    4:60-61. The author concludes this section by describing the defensive measures taken to ensure that the Gentiles would not repeat what they had done at Jerusalem (1:31; 3:45, 51), or attack from the south (4:29). The refortified walls are not those of the whole of Jerusalem, but of the temple mount itself. The Akra remained in enemy hands.

    REFLECTIONS

    Solomon’s prayer at the dedication of the first Temple in Jerusalem shows an awareness that if heaven and earth cannot contain God, still less could the Temple that Solomon had built (1 Kgs 8:27). Yet a community requires a place to gather in order to worship together. When a church building or other place of worship is destroyed by a hurricane or by a fire, the community rallies around the congregation and starts to find ways to rebuild. We all need a familiar place, familiar songs and practices. Whenever there is a change in liturgy, opposition arises, as in the sixteenth-century Year of Grace rebellion in England and the opposition to the Second Vatican Council decision to replace Latin with the vernacular in Roman Catholic worship. Some worshiping communities still prefer the resonances of the King James Version 

     

                                     <Page 72 Ends><Page 73 Begins>

     

    of the Bible to more accurate contemporary translations. People like what is familiar, what is traditional. That is how the community is accustomed to meeting God. The reintroduction of purified worship in the Temple reflects that same human tendency, for religion is not just intellectual—the whole person is involved. That means that we are moved by the hymns and the familiar gestures and words of prayer, by the familiar sights and sounds, the traditional stories. Through such human interaction, the religious culture is transmitted from one generation to another.

  • Dan Francis
    Dan Francis Member Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭


    Mark 2:1-12, Healing the Paralytic

    Link to:   

     

     

                                     <Page 548 Ends><Page 549 Begins>

     

     

    COMMENTARY

    This episode combines the formal characteristics of a healing miracle with those of a pronouncement story. The healing miracle describes the cure of a paralyzed man in response to the faith shown by his friends: (a) severity of the illness and his being carried on a pallet by four men (v. 3); (b) the request for healing, implied in the men’s making a hole in the roof of the house to let him down before Jesus (v. 4); (c) action by the healer and word of forgiveness (v. 5) and command (v. 11); evidence of the cure in that the man rises and carries away his pallet, to the amazement of the crowd (v. 12). A controversy over Jesus’ claim to forgive sin erupts in the middle of the healing miracle (vv. 5-10). The successful healing serves as the response that defeats the argument offered by the scribes.

    The juxtaposition of a healing miracle with a debate over Jesus’ authority to forgive sin raises a question about the pre-Markan history of the tradition. A variant story of Jesus’ healing a paralytic in John 5:1-9 has the man healed by the command to carry his pallet off. Only after the man has been challenged by the Jewish authorities for violating the sabbath does Jesus find him in the Temple and warn him to sin no more (John 5:1-14). The Johannine example shows that it is possible to separate the debate over sin from the healing of a paralyzed person. However, if Mark 2:5b-10 were originally an independent tradition that has been woven into the miracle story, then the statement about forgiveness must have replaced some other word of reassurance.106 The miracle ends with the common assertion that all were amazed and gave glory to God (v. 12). However, that conclusion hardly incorporates the scribes, who are locked in controversy with Jesus over forgiveness.

    Mark uses the immense popularity of Jesus with the crowds, established in the summary statements (1:27-28, 32-34, 45; 2:2) to create an obstacle for the men seeking a miracle.107 They cannot get near Jesus, and their determination to do so exhibits the faith that moves Jesus to heal the man (v. 5a). In the healing of the leper, the form of the petitioner’s request exhibits appropriate piety concerning God’s power. This story adds a different dimension to the miracle stories: faith as a condition of healing. Faith may be understood merely as a variant of the earlier petition. In many ancient miracle accounts, the faith attributed to the petitioner means that the individual recognizes the deity’s ability to grant the request.108 The Markan stories have an additional dimension to this faith. Whenever faith appears in the healing miracles, the persons involved must overcome physical or social obstacles (5:21-24, 35-43; 10:46-52). Their faith is directed toward Jesus as the one who is able to exercise God’s healing power. Lack of faith limits Jesus’ ability to perform miracles in his native village of Nazareth (6:5-6a).

    Jesus’ statement that the man’s sins are forgiven hardly follows from the request for healing, as we have seen. Some interpreters try to avoid the implication that Jesus usurped God’s prerogative (Exod 34:6-7; Isa 43:25; 44:22) by suggesting that the statement was intended to reassure the man that God would forgive him (as in 3:28; 4:12). Or they point to Old Testament passages in which illness is associated with sin (2 Sam 12:13; 

     

                                     <Page 549 Ends><Page 550 Begins>

     

    Ps 103:3; Isa 6:7). Jesus’ defense, however, does not respond to the charge of blasphemy with an appeal to Scripture. Nor does he respond directly to the charge that he claims God’s authority. The Gospel’s readers might also wonder why he does not refer to the forgiveness that was associated with John’s baptism (1:4). God remains the agent of forgiveness in that context.

    Jesus’ words to the man may be understood as an expression of similar assurance about the forgiveness that comes from God. However, he responds first with a saying that depends on the assumption that it is more difficult to tell the man to walk than to say, “Your sins are forgiven” (v. 9). The logical juxtaposition is unclear. Both are statements about powers that belong to God. The latter would be more rapidly disconfirmed if the man were not cured.109 By juxtaposing the issue of forgiveness and the command that Jesus will give the man, Mark makes it clear that the healing is a sign that the man has been forgiven.

    The evangelist has expanded Jesus’ words with a saying about the authority of the Son of Man (v. 10). The term translated “authority” (ejxousi"a exousia) appears in earlier crowd reactions to Jesus’ exorcisms (1:27). A similar Son of Man saying is attached to the assertion of freedom from sabbath restrictions in Mark 2:28. Both sayings use the title “Son of Man” to claim a present authority that sets Jesus and his followers over against Jewish authorities. The textual tradition is uncertain in locating the phrase “on earth.” Some place it after “Son of Man,” others at the end of the clause. The phrase seems intended to contrast God, who is in heaven, with the Son of Man. Since the Son of Man figure in Dan 7:14 is a human who ascends to the divine throne, the use of Son of Man here presumes a Christian identification of Jesus as Son of Man. The distinction between God and Jesus as Son of Man is maintained by the specification of the appropriate sphere in which the Son of Man exercises authority: on earth.

    With the exception of Mark 2:28, all other references to the Son of Man appear after the passion prediction in 8:31. The authority of the Son of Man in that context is established only after the Son of Man is confessed as the one who died on the cross and who will come to judge the world. The coming of the Son of Man in judgment will vindicate Jesus against those who maliciously accuse him of blasphemy at his trial (14:62-64). His death on the cross atones for the sins of humanity (10:45). Although Mark’s readers were certainly familiar with the passion and future judge types of the Son of Man saying, nothing in the narrative prompts the reader to supply that use for the sayings in chapter 2. The judgment saying in Mark 8:38 correlates the attitude people take toward Jesus in this world with the attitude the heavenly Son of Man will take toward them in the judgment. In that context, people encounter Jesus on earth—that is, in this evil generation, and the Son of Man in heaven. Thus the present-authority form of the Son of Man saying found in these passages is quite unusual.110 Mark has probably derived these two sayings from his tradition. The crowd recognizes that God is the final source of the miracle they witness (v. 12).

    How the expression “Son of Man” came to be used to designate Jesus remains the subject of scholarly debate. The phrase is never used by others as a confessional statement about Jesus in the Gospel. Jesus uses the expression as a form of self-reference. As a colloquial Aramaic expression, “son of man” (vna rb bar )unAs) could be used as an indirect third person.111 In that case, a saying about the authority of the Son of Man may have been used by Jesus to imply that “a person” or “humans” have such authority. When “Son of Man” is juxtaposed with Jesus, the evangelists intend the expression to refer to Jesus’ special status. Passion predictions treat the suffering of the Son of Man as a paradox, challenging conventional views of power, authority, and honor (8:31-33). A final group of sayings describes the Son of Man as one who comes in glory with the angels of God to execute judgment (8:38). The apocalyptic picture of the Son of Man as judge can be linked with the vision of “one like a son of Man” in Dan 7:13-14 (other elements of Dan 7:13-14 are used in Mark 8:38; 13:26; 14:62). In that vision, the seer sees a heavenly figure with a human form ascending to God’s throne and being endowed with an eternal rule over the 

     

                                     <Page 550 Ends><Page 551 Begins>

     

    nations. As the representative of the righteous persons who have suffered persecution, the Son of Man heralds the destruction of their persecutors (Dan 7:21-22, 27).112 Echoes of the heavenly Son of Man, who represents the suffering righteous, provide the most plausible source for the use of the expression in reference to Jesus. Even so, “forgiveness of sins” represents an innovation in that tradition.

    Mark’s reader is familiar with Jesus’ authority to heal. In its present form, this story portrays healing as evidence of Jesus’ authority to forgive sin. In what some interpreters take as ironic reversal, Jesus argues that it is “easier” to pronounce forgiveness of sins than to heal a paralyzed person. By applying the common rule of argument, if the greater case holds, so the lesser. Jesus insists that if he heals the man, then his enemies must recognize his authority to forgive sin. Jesus has already demonstrated something of divine omniscience by recognizing the sins of the man before him and the hostile thoughts of his opponents. The scribes’ charge of blasphemy, made against Jesus, though without credible evidence, at his trial (14:64) could warrant the death penalty. Jesus takes the initiative in unmasking the inner thoughts of the scribes. His ability to know what is in the human heart is another attribute reserved only to God. Although Jesus’ demonstration of divine authority does not convert his enemies, the crowd responds appropriately by glorifying God.

    REFLECTIONS

    1. Jesus began his ministry with an attack on the powers of demonic possession and illness (1:21-45). The approach of God’s rule meant healing of severe physical afflictions, which separated persons from the larger human community. In this story, another barrier falls: that of sin. Resistance to Jesus’ words and actions of forgiveness shows that the separation of the sinner from God is not the only barrier created by sin. Humans divide themselves into categories of “righteous” and “sinners,” but Jesus rejects that division. The “righteous” think they know the conditions under which persons may expect to receive mercy from God. Those who experience God’s mercy and compassion are already trying to shape their lives by God’s law. Their desire for holiness is not wrong. The failure occurs when the scribes mistake Jesus’ ministry to sinners as blasphemous disregard for God’s holiness.

    2. Jesus establishes a pattern of holiness that invites the outsider into fellowship. Forgiveness is essential to the new community around Jesus. The story of the paralytic also reminds us that forgiveness is central to healing. Psychoanalysis has taught the twentieth century that deep-seated, irrational guilt and self-hatred can generate imprisoning physical symptoms. That story highlights another important feature of the social context of illness: The faith of the paralyzed man’s four friends initiated the healing encounter with Jesus. For many people, the most difficult part of enduring a severe illness is helplessness, the need to rely on others for one’s basic functions of daily life.

  • Dan Francis
    Dan Francis Member Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭


    1 Thessalonians 2:17-20, Aborted Trips and the Parousia

     

    <Page 706 Ends><Page 707 Begins>

    COMMENTARY

    With the first subunit (2:17-20), Paul explicitly notes the last local opposition that occurred during the foundational visit—namely, the abrupt forced separation of the leaders from the church. With language that expresses the depths of sorrow, Paul now describes the distress of this separation (v. 17) and laments the futility of his efforts to return (v. 18). He also neutralizes any possible discouragement about the aborted visits with a declaration of benefits accruing to another visit or arrival: the parousia, a future grand visit or arrival similar to that of Hellenistic kings and rulers (vv. 19-20).75

    The account in the book of Acts seems to suggest that the departure of the leaders from the Thessalonian church was caused by Jewish agitation (Acts 17:5-9). However, Acts' reckoning of the events of Paul's work in Thessalonica is difficult to reconcile with Paul's own account in several ways. For one, as has already been noted (see the Introduction), Paul's Thessalonian converts included Jews and Gentiles according to Acts 17:1-4, but only Gentiles according to 1 Thess 1:9-10; 2:14-16. Second, although 1 Thessalonians seems to involve Timothy explicitly in the foundational work at Thessalonica (1:1; 3:1-2, 6), Acts directly mentions the difficulties Paul and Silas encountered in Philippi and Thessalonica but only directly notes Timothy when the three leaders are together in Beroea (Acts 17:14). Third, because the form of the word “alone” (mo;noi monoi, 3:1) is plural in Greek, Paul gives the impression that he and presumably Silvanus were in Athens when Timothy was sent to the Thessalonians. Acts gives the impression, however, that (after Beroea) Silvanus and Timothy did not join up with Paul until they arrived in Corinth (Acts 18:5).

    However one seeks to reconcile these accounts, Paul seems less interested in naming the exact cause of the separation than in indicating the heavy toll it exacted on the entire leadership team and on his personal life. Having already noted the great anguish of the separation for the church (v. 14), Paul uses vv. 17-20 to show the effect of the separation from the vantage point of the foundational leaders. The expression “we were made orphans” sufficiently translates the Greek word that lies behind it (ajporfanisqe;ntev aporphanisthentes, v. 17); however, the NRSV adds “by being separated from you” (v. 17), although these words are not actually a part of the Greek text. Still, Paul's lament that his leadership team became orphans aptly catches the sense of deep grief caused by the separation.76

    An indication of the depths of their grief is also shown in the way Paul heaps passionate phrases on top of one another to describe the attempts to return to Thessalonica. A literal translation of v. 17 would read: “As for us, brethren, when we were made orphans from you for a short time, in person [prosw"pw prosopo] not in heart, we even much more and with great longing made every effort to see your face [pro;swpon prosopon].” 

    As if the intensity of the leadership team's resolve is still not dramatized enough, however, Paul shifts from a description of the collective effects of the separation and recent endeavors to visit to his own personal strivings: “I, Paul...” (v. 18b). Shortly, as he continues to deal with the effects of the separation, Paul will similarly shift from the foundational leaders' inability to “bear” the separation to his own personal inability to do so (3:1, 5). For now, however, he seeks to expose the constancy of his effort to get back to the church. And constancy or persistence, as we have seen, is a recurring theme throughout the entire letter.

    Exactly how often Paul tried to return is not known, for the expression “again and again” (lit., “once and twice [kai; a{pax kai; di;v kai hapax kai dis],” v. 18b) connotes an “indefinite number of occasions”77 (cf. Phil 4:16). Exactly what blocked his way is also not known, though some scholars speculate about a possible embargo or a physical malady.78 What we do know, however,

     

    <Page 707 Ends><Page 708 Begins>

     is that Paul's categorizing the obstruction as an effort of Satan is strategic on at least two levels.

    On the one hand, this categorization reiterates Paul's apocalyptic ideas already noted in the letter. In his “already/not yet” apocalyptic understanding of reality, Satan is a deceiver who can take on the form of an angel of light, as can his envoys (2 Cor 2:11; 11:14). He is also a tempter (1 Cor 7:5; cf. 1 Thess 3:5) and one whom “God will shortly crush” (Rom 16:20). Thus, having already mentioned the “persecution” or “eschatological woes” (qli'yiv thlipsis, 1:6) in which the church received the word of God, Paul now highlights again the manifestations of the old age with a reference to the continuing hindrances of Satan. Once more, however, if the church recognizes that the intensity of the opposition described in vv. 14-16 is actually an indication of the imminence of God's wrath, the believers would likely recognize as well that Satan's repeated hindrances also signal the approaching end. 

    On the other hand, the categorization also anticipates Paul's next subunit, in which he will speak again in an oblique way about an evil force. In 3:5, Paul notes his former fear that the “tempter had tempted” his young church in the wake of his departure. Given that Satan was known as a tempter in Paul's apocalyptic worldview, it is likely that Paul is still speaking about the reality of the old age's pressure on believers (now with respect to the church). Indeed, Paul's use of the term “persecution” (qli;yesin thlipsesin, 3:3-4) also reinforces the apocalyptic context out of which Paul speaks. If he, indeed, is making the connection, he is also linking himself (and the other members of the leadership team) more solidly to his church. Both faced the pressures of the old age in the foundational moments of the work at Thessalonica; and the pressures continue.

    Paul's reflections in vv. 17-20, however, do not end with his lament about the separation or his musings on Satan's hindrance. Because Satan's repeated hindrances would have signaled the imminence of the end to the Thessalonian addressees, Paul could not dwell on the hindrances alone. It is understandable why he would then launch out of the deep pathos of lamentation about the separation and aborted visits and shift the audience's thoughts to another visit or arrival, the parousia. 

    The word “parousia” has two essential meanings: “presence” (2 Macc 15:21; 3 Macc 3:17; 2 Cor 10:10; Phil 2:12) and “arrival” (Jdt 10:18; 2 Macc 8:12; 1 Cor 16:17; 2 Cor 7:6-7).79 Howard notes that the word “came to have particular associations with the arrival of a central figure.” The word indicated both “the physical act of arrival” and “the attendant circumstances in which the ruler was honored.” It is generally believed that the early Christians adopted these “particular associations” to speak about Christ's coming. It is likely, moreover, that the term “would have evoked the image of the return of a triumphant conqueror in the Hellenistic world and the idea of a coronation on that occasion.”80

    For Paul, mentioning the parousia potentially had two results. First, with the imagery of a crown (v. 19), i.e., the laurel wreath won by an athletic victor, Paul could obliquely imply the success of his mission (cf. 1 Cor 9:25; Phil 4:1; 1 Thess 2:19). Presupposing the parousia as a time of mission assessment (cf. 1 Cor 4:10-15; 2 Cor 1:14), Paul makes the claim that the church will be his “crown of boasting” (cf. 1 Cor 9:25; Phil 4:1). That is, it will not disintegrate. The word of God that is still working in the believers will continue to do so (v. 13b), and the church will be the evidence of Paul's faithfulness to God in the call God assigned to him. Second, and related, because Paul and the Thessalonian believers will be together at the parousia, Paul is now neutralizing the present inability to get to them because of Satan's hindrances. Ultimately, he is suggesting that a reunion will occur between the foundational leaders and the church in spite of Satan's plots, even if that reunion must wait until his Lord's glorious parousia, the final blow to the manifestations of the old age. Indeed, he has joy (3:9) now as he thinks about the church in the light of that reunion. The church's joy was inspired by the Holy Spirit (1:6), God's pledge of all that is to come in the new age's consummation. Paul has joy as well as he thinks of that consummation. Satan has blocked his way, but not his joy.

     

    <Page 708 Ends><Page 709 Begins>

    REFLECTIONS

    Joy comes in a number of forms. Some works of visual art evoke joy: the marvelous landscapes of Edward M. Bannister or the magnificent Water Lilies of Claude Monet. Some sights evoke joy: a view of the Mediterranean Sea from atop the Notre Dame de la Garde in Marseilles or the snow-capped peak of Mt. Ranier above Seattle's foggy mists. Some musical compositions or performances evoke sheer joy: Bach's Flute Concerto, Kathleen Battle's sweeping rendition of “Were You There When They Crucified My Lord?” or the voices of the three tenors, José Carreras, Placido Domingo, and Luciano Pavarotti.

    Thefts, nature's path of destruction, and death, however, can deprive us of the beauty of these joys. Yet the joy of which Paul speaks has no favorite season beyond which it can be felt no more. It neither originates from nor depends on transient forces. It can be experienced by women and men who can claim it personally in their lives, but it is not an isolated, private joy. It is both a hope for concrete benefits in the future and a present reality. 

    This is the joy that breaks through the gloomiest of days to buoy the otherwise disheartened. This is the joy that comes not from changing circumstances, but from a constant presence in the believer's life, the Holy Spirit. This is the joy that arises out of sights that are sure but not yet fully seen or realized. This is the joy that can stir the heart of a man to write “It Is Well with My Soul” even after the loss of family members at sea, as if to transform incomprehensible sorrow through a tireless declaration of the believer's peace in God. This is the joy of bruised and berated black bards who defied their circumstances with the simplest, yet weightiest, of words: “This joy that I have, the world did not give it to me.” This is the joy of Archbishop Romero, whose last letter before his assassination spoke of the “spirit of joy at being accorded the privilege of running the same risks as [the poor], as Jesus did by identifying with the causes of the dispossessed.”81 This is Paul's view of joy.

  • Dan Francis
    Dan Francis Member Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭


    DANIEL 3:1-30, POLITICAL ATHEISM AND RADICAL FAITH

    Link to:   

     

                                       <Page 58 Ends><Page 61 Begins>

     

    COMMENTARY

    3:1, The Statue. This chapter begins abruptly with the construction of a statue. The dimensions of this statue are certainly odd; the height is ten times greater than the width, giving the impression that it is a pole-like structure. Montgomery suggests that we should understand that it is a stele (that is, a tower of stone, like an obelisk) with a carving of a figure or covered with inscriptions. We are not told that the statue is of Nebuchadnezzar himself, but the text certainly allows this impression, particularly noting that the statue in chap. 2 is in the form of a human being. Hippolytus of Rome (c. 220 CE) suggested that Nebuchadnezzar actually sought to build the image that he saw in the previous dream, being overly impressed with his reign’s being represented by gold.

    This statue, then, is made of gold, the substance of highest commercial value. In his recent work, Dutch theologian Ton Veerkamp speaks powerfully of the use of gold and its meaning, as well as the location of “Dura.” Veerkamp believes that the present form of Daniel 3 took its redactional shape in the Seleucid period, and thus writes that the statue portrayed in Daniel 3 is “a golden monstrosity. . . . Medium of exchange, deposit of value, measure of worth—gold was the gravitational center of the Hellenistic economy. The King of Kings made an image of it—he established the economy and made from it a cult object—he made a fetish of gold. The Empire establishes Gold as a god of the whole world—that is the meaning of what is here described here.”99

    Basing his analysis on his proposal that “Dura” (which can mean “plain”) is in fact the famous Dura-Europos (270 miles northwest of Babylon), Veerkamp notes that although this Dura was not significant in the Babylonian period, it was a place of significant activity for Antiochus III and Antiochus IV, because it was located along important trade routes and was the site of a temple to Zeus. Veerkamp supposes that the writer unites the crisis of the Jews under Nebuchadnezzar with the height of Seleucid power, the latter’s rule being one in which gold reigned; but a Seleucid era insertion of the reference to Dura would have this impact just as effectively. Other scholars, however, are more cautious about the reference to Dura, noting that the term is used for many locations. The Greek historian Herodotus also goes to some length to describe what he had heard about the amount of gold in the religious shrines of the Babylonians, including statues and tables for sacrifice.100  Finally, Brown has noted that already in the fifth century BCE, gold was becoming the “primary circulating source of value.”101 

     

                                       <Page 61 Ends><Page 62 Begins>

     

    Lacocque draws attention to the Greek versions, which insert a date for this event as the eighteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar—in other words, the year of his conquest of Jerusalem. Thus the statue went up in the year the Temple came down—false worship as opposed to true worship.102

    Although not always using of gold, Mesopotamian regimes certainly built monstrous images; this is clear to any visitor to the British Museum, where Nineveh’s massive winged bulls are on display and to this day communicate very powerfully the message they were originally meant to convey: the power of an empire. Collins, on the other hand, suggests that a memory of Nabonidus’s construction and restoration of the statue of Sin, the moon god, at Harran (which apparently infuriated the priesthood of Marduk in Babylon) may be behind the motif of the Babylonian monarch’s erecting the statue.

    Is the construction of the statue an act of pride? Does the story suggest that the Babylonian monarch wanted to be divinized? If so, is there any historical precedent for this? Judith 3:8 records a legend that Nebuchadnezzar certainly did want to be looked upon as a god, and the grandiose claims of the Mesopotamian rulers could easily give this impression, even if it is not technically accurate. Whether Nebuchadnezzar ever erected such a statue is totally beside the point. The point was that he could—he could amass that much gold; he could assemble the leaders; he could demand obedience and threaten horrible punishment—and this is the plausibility (that is, a political plausibility) that the stories of Daniel are based on.

    3:2-7, The Command of Obedience. 3:2. As if to remove any doubt of what the gold is to symbolize, there follows a gathering of all the highest officials of the government—the representatives of Babylonian power and prestige—called by Nebuchadnezzar to announce his cult of gold. The book communicates the great size of the court, Persian as well as Babylonian, and the various levels of administration by its use of lists of various types of officials. Note also, however, that the Jewish writers are familiar with the terminology of governance. Rosenthal notes that the first few terms are borrowed from Mesopotamian (Akkadian) languages, while most of the others are from Persian terms, such as the words translated in the NRSV as “counselors,” “treasurers,” “law officials,” “magistrates/police chiefs,” and the general category of “all who rule/have authority.”103 The presence of treasurers is, of course, particularly interesting for the origin of Nebuchadnezzar’s “image of gold.” In his attempt to suggest a date, Collins proposes that the use of Persian names requires a long enough period of time for the language of the Persians to sink in to the Jewish population,104 but all minority peoples learn the vocabulary of authority very quickly (see Introduction).

    3:3a. This verse repeats the list, in response to Nebuchadnezzar’s command. This frequent repetition of orders, usually repeated word for word, gives the impression that all the minions of the Babylonian emperor obey his whim to the letter. This is what he wanted, and this is exactly what happened.

    3:3b-4. The herald cries in a loud voice, a term also used in association with the military; thus it is a commanding voice. The address is directed to the “peoples, nations, and languages.” The vastness of the territories under imperial control is suggested here. Empires of the ancient Near East frequently claimed to control massive numbers of the peoples in the known world. The Assyrian monarch Sennacherib wrote: “Sennacherib, the great king, king of the universe, king of Assyria, king of the four quarters. . . . ”105 Nebuchadnezzar II, in one of the Wadi-Brisa inscriptions, claims to have made Babylon “foremost among all the countries and every human habitation,”106 while in the so-called Cyrus Cylinder, Cyrus claims, “I am Cyrus, king of the world, great king, legitimate king, king of Babylon, king of Sumer and Akkad, king of the four rims of the earth.”107 Such is the rhetoric of power, perhaps reaching a zenith in Roman rhetoric of Roman rule: “Cities now gleam in splendor and beauty, and the whole earth is arrayed like a paradise.”108 

     

                                       <Page 62 Ends><Page 63 Begins>

     

     

    3:5. Scholarly comment on the musical instruments is interesting because of the presence of at least one Greek term, sumfwniva (symphonia [hynpmws sûmponyâ ]; NIV, “pipes”; NRSV, “drum”), usually taken to be some primitive form of bagpipe. But Lacocque’s comments on the instruments are also interesting. “The flute” (NIV, NRSV, “pipe” [atyqwrvm masrôqîtA)]) was a simple peasant’s instrument (Judg 5:16), while the “lyre” (NRSV, NIV, “zither” [swrtyq qayturôs ]) would be made of precious metal or ivory and would be an aristocrat’s instrument.109 Both the sambyka (NRSV, “trigon”; NIV, “lyre” [akbs sabbukA)]) and the symphonia have bad reputations with the Greeks, the former repudiated by Plato and the latter an instrument that inspired Antiochus IV to dance in what was seen as a shameful public spectacle. It may be that the instruments themselves, and the social class associated with them, suggest a kind of universal demand on all peoples (poor and wealthy) to be obedient to the king.

    3:6. Punishment by fire is not entirely unknown, as seen in Jeremiah 29. As Collins notes, punishment by fire became the “eschatological punishment par excellence in the post-exilic prophecy and apocalyptic literature.”110 (Note the destruction of the beast in Revelation as well as in Daniel 7.)

    3:7. The peoples are to “fall down” (lpn nupal, a position of submission) and “do honor” (dgs sugad ; the NRSV translates this as “worship,” but this will be somewhat problematic, as noted below) when they hear the music. As earlier in the story, the repetition fits exactly, and the people respond as they are commanded. As Nebuchadnezzar wants it, so shall he have it—except for one slight problem: Jewish resistance breaks out again.

    3:8-12, The Denunciation of the Jews. Here, the story begins to get interesting. The setting is the presence of the king. The Chaldeans (the use of this term for Babylonians is perhaps intended to be ethnically specific, rather than to refer to court astrologers) accuse the Jews of disobedience and insolence before the king. The literal phrase used for “accusation” (@whyxrq wlka )akalû qarzêhôn) is rather interesting: “they ate bits off,” which is an Akkadian idiom meaning “to accuse.” The Chaldeans remind the king of the decree he has made, repeating all that was stated before with one interesting exception: The Jews also “do not worship your gods.” This was not, of course, part of Nebuchadnezzar’s original decree about the statue, but it adds to the sense that the Jews are guilty because they are foreigners—merely conquered exiles—who were trusted by the king (as in Esther). The king’s rage is perhaps to be understood to have arisen not only from the disobedience of the command to fall before the statue, but also from the fact that the judgment of the king is brought into question for having appointed these four Jews to positions of importance in the first place. Thus betrayal is added to insubordination.

    The motif of the evil counselors vs. the Jewish court officials runs through many of these stories and suggests some ethnic tensions between the tellers, and hearers, of these stories and the surrounding peoples. In his analysis of the Daniel stories, Meinhold was particularly alert to this sociopsychological aspect of the stories.111

    Interestingly, the term translated “worship” (of your gods [jlp pulah]) is different from that used for “worship” (of the statue [sugid]) in v. 5. The latter term can be read as “honor”—that is, that the statue was to be honored. When Nebuchadnezzar fell before Daniel in 2:46, he honored Daniel, but did not worship him in the same sense that the Jews did not worship the gods of Nebuchadnezzar.

    It seems odd that the king does not know that these Jews will not worship the Babylonian gods, irrespective of their attitude toward the golden statue. This is further indication of the isolation of these stories from one another at some point before they were joined together. The stubborn refusal to compromise their faith is reintroduced in story after story. It seems that almost each time, the king needs to learn something about these Jews, including those aspects that were introduced already in a previous story. That Daniel and his friends Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah worshiped the Hebrew God should hardly have been news to Nebuchadnezzar. In any case, as a result 

     

                                       <Page 63 Ends><Page 64 Begins>

    of the accusation, the Jews will be brought before the king.

    3:13-18, The Appearance Before the King and Jewish Defiance. 3:13-14. The king, once again in a “furious rage,” summons the insubordinate Jewish exiles. As with many of the Daniel stories, the turning point occurs in the presence of, or before the king. The setting of these crucial scenes is obvious given the power and majesty of the emperor. To actually stand before this ruler who commands such authority and wealth is an awesome fate. Thus in v. 14 the question is put to the young Jewish men, and now regards two accusations: “You do not worship my gods . . . and . . . honor my statue?” (cf. Bel and the Dragon in the Commentary on the Additions to Daniel, 185-94).

    3:15. Nebuchadnezzar offers the Jews one last chance; thus this verse is full of the folkloric repetition of lists that is typical of Daniel. What is interesting is the final phrase, which has been translated variously as “and who is the god that will deliver you out of my hands” (NRSV) and “who ever is the god who could rescue you from my power?”112 Nebuchadnezzar’s rule and authority are such that only a god can deliver the accused Jews. The Babylonian ruler is a man of great arrogance. Porteous writes, “We see here the worldly power absolutely confident that there is no limit to its authority.”113

    3:16-18. The reaction of the accused Jews is to declare their independence from royal authority. Their response in v. 17 is a statement of faith, proclaiming the existence of the God who can deliver them—indeed, there is one with greater authority than Nebuchadnezzar. Such is their faith. But their belief has consequences. Verse 18 is a statement of the resulting action: If their God does not deliver them, still they “will not worship the golden statue.” They boldly express civil disobedience to the law of the king.

    Verse 18 contains one of the most powerful statements in the entire book of Daniel, with consequences reaching far beyond this little story: “But if not. . . . ” They profess that their God is able to deliver them, but even if not, they will not obey the king’s commands. This is a statement of faith against the appearance of defeat. The most infuriating aspect of radical faith is its adamant refusal to be impressed with the obvious—namely, the subordinated status and powerlessness of the Jews before the mighty emperor—and their steadfast adherence to an alternative reality: God reigns. Nebuchadnezzar’s response is hardly unexpected in the face of this open defiance in the name of faith.

    3:19-27, The Salvation of the Jews. The strength of those who overpower the Jews in order to cast them into the furnace is impressive. Again, the specific vocabulary used for this action suggests a military association. The garment terminology (“robes, trousers, turbans and other clothes”) has caused some difficulty, but the Aramaic has an almost rhythmic, rhyming quality to it, reminding one of a phrase like the English “lock, stock, and barrel.” In any case, taking care to point out that they are wearing clothes when they are placed in the furnace will allow the later observation that their garments do not even smell of smoke, let alone look burnt.

    A key to this description of their impending execution is the binding. Binding is the symbol of police authority par excellence. In his analysis of symbols of power carried by each Roman soldier, Wengst noted that handcuffs “stand for the maintenance of the new situation brought about by force of arms.”114 In Daniel 3, the act of binding the young Jewish men is repeated (1) when the three are cast into the furnace; (2) when the king asks if his order has been fulfilled, including the binding (v. 24); and (3) when Nebuchadnezzar sees the men walking, unbound (v. 25). Furthermore, as in 2:15, the king’s decree is punctuated by his hysterical rage, without regard for clear thought. The death of those who would kill the Jewish exiles recalls similar reversals of fortune, such as one finds in the book of Esther, but the motif may be used here to convey the absurdity of the king’s rage, which results in the senseless loss of his own officials who were killed by the flames when they threw the three Jews into the furnace.115 

     

                                       <Page 64 Ends><Page 65 Begins>

     

     

    Verse 24 introduces another of the most interesting aspects of the story. The “fourth person” whom the king sees inside the furnace has given rise to considerable scholarly debate. The Aramaic reads literally “son of god.” Was this intended to be a reference to an angel? Perhaps the reference is to a special presence of God with the three young men? The Aramaic word @yhlaArb (bar-  )ulAhîn) is typically taken to refer to a member of the “sons of god,” who are collectively known as the “host of heaven” (Gen 6:2; 1 Kgs 22:19; Job 1:6; 38:7; Ps 148:2). There is also frequent mention of the presence of a court of heaven in the Ugaritic/Canaanite materials.116 Goldingay suggests that Old Testament promises of heavenly aides to protect God’s people become concrete here (cf. Pss 34:8; 91:11).117 Collins relates the fourth person to the “Angel/Messenger of Yahweh” who protects Israel in Exod 14:19 and who guides Israel (Exod 23:20), helps Elijah (1 Kgs 19:7), and destroys the Assyrian army (2 Kgs 19:35; Isa 37:36).118 This seems particularly suggestive in the light of the appearances of Michael as the protector of the Israelite people during the exilic experience (Daniel 7; 10–12).

    What is further interesting is that the presence of the fourth figure and the survival of the three young men in the fiery furnace brings forth a statement of faith by Nebuchadnezzar, who calls them, “servants of the Most High God” (v. 26). The phrase “Most High God” (ahlaAyd yhwdb[ (Abdôhî dî-)ulAhA)) is a form of reference used for the God of the Jews in many exilic and post-exilic writings.

    Many scholars have suggested an interesting resemblance to the near burning of Croesus by Cyrus, who wanted to know if gods would come to Croesus’s rescue.119 But fire imagery has other associations with the exilic experience in the Bible. Isaiah 48:10 refers to the exile itself as a “refining fire,” and many scholars have pointed to the imagery of Isa 43:2 as obviously related to this story: “When you walk through fire you shall not be burned,/ and the flame shall not consume you” (NRSV).120 If this Isaiah passage was in the mind of the storyteller, the implication that the exile (which is compared by Isaiah to the exodus) was like a fiery threat ought once again to give pause to those who argue that the exile was “not that bad.”

    3:28-30, Glorification of the Jews, Promotion, and Proclamation. 3:28. Nebuchadnezzar not only honors the trust of the Jews, but also emphasizes that his decree has been successfully disobeyed. This theme of changing the supposedly unchangeable decree of the king is noted throughout Daniel (Dan 2:9; 3:19; 5:6, 9; 6:18; 7:7; note also the theme in Ezra 2:21; 6:9, 11, 16; 7:25). The defiance that appears to be obvious—in other words, the political “atheism” of the Jews in their refusal to bow to the symbols of Babylonian power—is a key point to the teller of the stories. Those who hear these stories learn to see a new reality that is informed by the “Most High God.”

    3:29-30. Now the proclamation is made throughout the many lands under Babylonian rule that God’s signs and wonders are great and mighty. More important, God’s kingdom and the sovereignty of God are everlasting. In the face of the mistaken power of Babylon, even Nebuchadnezzar is made to recognize his limitations before this God. But the humbling of the mighty emperor was instigated by the civil disobedience of three who lived by another reality, because they served another sovereign.

    REFLECTIONS

    1. Fanon reminds the reader of Daniel of the power and impact of symbols of colonialism and imposition of foreign culture: “The colonial world is a world where the settler makes history and is conscious of making it . . . a world of statues: the statue of the general who 

     

                                       <Page 65 Ends><Page 66 Begins>

    carried out the conquest, the statue of the engineer who built the bridge. . . . The first thing the native learns is to stay in his place, and not to go beyond certain limits.”121

    Memmi echoes this observation: “The few statues which decorate the city represent (with incredible scorn for the colonized who pass them every day) the great deeds of colonization. The buildings are patterned after the colonizer’s own favorite designs; the same is true of the street names, which recall the faraway provinces from which he came. . . . Traditions and acquirements, habits and conquests, deeds and acts of previous generations are thus bequeathed and recorded in history.”122 Memmi insists that there is a certain inevitability to such displays in the mind of the conqueror, because “he loves the most flashy symbols, the most striking demonstrations of the power of his country. He attends all the military parades and he desires and obtains frequent and elaborate ones; he contributes his part by dressing up carefully and ostentatiously. He admires the army and its strength, reverses uniforms and covets decorations . . . this corresponds to a deep necessity . . . to impress the colonized is just as important as to reassure oneself.”123

    It is possible, in the light of what Fanon and Memmi reveal, to look on the ruins of ancient Babylon with a new eye—an eye to the impact that such sights would have had on those whose suffering formed the very bricks of this ancient wonder of the world. Yet, Fanon writes that the inward life of the colonized person is quite different: “He is overpowered but not tamed; he is treated as an inferior but he is not convinced of his inferiority . . . the settler pits brute force against the weight of numbers. He is an exhibitionist. His preoccupation with security makes him remind the native out loud that he alone is master. The settler keeps alive in the native an anger which he deprives of outlet.”124

    In Daniel 3, the statue as a symbol of power communicates the power of this story, but Daniel 3 itself communicates the inward conviction that the Jewish population is not powerless or without recourse. As is often the case with the Bible, the reader must turn to the world of subordinated peoples, minorities, the displaced and threatened, to learn how to ask socially appropriate questions of a book that reflects an exiled or politically occupied people.

    Nebuchadnezzar’s statue stands for political and economic power. As such, it only weakens the message of Daniel 3 to reduce it to merely a pious lesson about idolatry or the fall of the proud, as if to relate it to any proud person of any station in life. Daniel 3 is about a particular kind of pride that comes from a system that derives its prestige and power from the suffering of others; in short, it is the unique pride of the wealthy and the powerful. Who else can erect golden monuments? Along this same line, it is perhaps somewhat dangerous to see in chap. 3 any sympathetic portrayal of Nebuchadnezzar (who is portrayed, in the words of Fanon, as both an “exhibitionist” of power and the raging executioner).125 To suggest that chap. 3 has a sympathetic portrayal of the emperor at the end is merely to point out that in the end the monarch’s power is humbled, defeated because of the statue’s powerlessness over the Jews; and thus the monarch is transformed. There is no sympathy with tyranny in Daniel 3; there is only the possibility of change.

    2. Is Daniel 3 a martyr legend? Porteous suggests that martyr legends can indeed result in the last-minute salvation of the heroes as well as their death,126 but Collins prefers to suggest that Daniel 3 is an emergent form of a martyr legend that will be fully developed in a test like 2 Maccabees 7.127 In any case, a martyr legend is intended to promote action—to embolden faith—and in the case of Daniel 3, to call people to active, nonviolent resistance to the symbols of worldly power and its religious expressions. In short, it is a call to political atheism. 

     

                                       <Page 66 Ends><Page 67 Begins>

  • Dan Francis
    Dan Francis Member Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭


    EXODUS 19:1-25, AT MOUNT SINAI 

    Link to:  

     

                                     <Page 831 Ends><Page 832 Begins>

                                     <Page 832 Ends><Page 833 Begins>

     

    COMMENTARY

    This extensive, complicated chapter serves as an introduction to the meeting between Yahweh and Israel at “the mountain.” Cast in liturgical form, its work is the preparation by Israel to be properly qualified for worship of Yahweh. Rhetorically, the central portion of the text reports a theophany—a disciplined account of the powerful, disruptive, cataclysmic coming of God into the midst of the community. The chapter begins with a geographical note (vv. 1-2), followed by a speech of God to Moses (vv. 3-6). The remainder of the chapter is constituted by a series of transactions that make the meeting possible (vv. 7-25). We may note three factors operating in this long and not well-ordered narrative of preparation.

    First, the meeting is an entry into “the holiness” for the purpose of worship. Such an entry and meeting is a high-risk venture for which careful preparation must be made. This focus on worship makes this chapter pivotal for the entire book of Exodus. On the one hand, this act of worship implements the long-standing, oft-repeated demand of the liberation narrative: “Let my people go that they may worship me” (cf. 5:1; 7:16; 8:1, 20; 9:1, 13; 10:3). On the other hand, and in a very different way, this careful preparation anticipates the detailed enterprise of “sanctification” in Exodus 25–31 and 35–40, whereby a meeting is made possible for Israel.

    The fact that this narrative is cast in liturgical categories permits the narrator to hold together two different aspects of Israel’s meeting with God. On the one hand, this is a dangerous, once-for-all event, never to be repeated. On the other hand, 

     

                                     <Page 833 Ends><Page 834 Begins>

     

    this is a model meeting that serves as a paradigm for all future covenantal confrontations.

    Second, while the meeting is “at the mountain,” there is a great deal of movement up and down the mountain. Thus Moses goes up (v. 3) and comes down (v. 14), while the people stand at the foot of the mountain (v. 17). Yahweh descends (vv. 18, 20), and Moses goes up (v. 20) and comes down (v. 25) as commanded in vv. 21, 24. Thomas Dozeman has proposed that movement up and down the mountain in the several literary sources articulates different “geographies of power” among the several parts of this community.94 Thus the movements up and down are at least scene changes, and likely intend to portray power relations concerning who has access and who stands over whom.

    Third, the cast of characters is also complicated. God and Moses are clearly the central protagonists. In addition “the people” are given direct access to God. The elders (v. 7), Aaron (v. 24), and the priests (v. 24) are also specified in their several roles. These various references may indicate, as Dozeman suggests, that in different sources, the distribution of power is differently portrayed; “the people” indicates a broadly based democratic shape of power, “the elders” indicates authorized lay leadership, and the “priests” (Aaron) are a sacerdotal alternative to lay leadership.

     19:1-2.   These two verses provide a narrative setting of time and place for the meeting to follow. Israel arrives at Rephadim in 17:1 (cf. 17:8), but 18:5 has a narrative episode at the mountain. These verses thus place the meeting at Sinai in the context of the wilderness sojourn. Moreover, the “third full moon” suggests that for this narrative, the events of 15:22– 18:27 do not take very long. In any case, the purpose of these verses is to make the mountain the context for what follows. It is futile to try to identify the mountain geographically. More important is the affirmation that the mountain is the place where earth touches heaven, where the human realm makes contact with the abode of God (or the gods). The place thus is laden with holy presence.

    19:3-6  God speaks to Moses, abruptly and with sovereign power. This speech is likely the most programmatic for Israelite faith that we have in the entire tradition of Moses. It divides into two parts.

    First, v. 4 is an indicative statement recalling the entire narrative of liberation. It affirms that Egypt is now past tense to Israel and that unambiguously the initiative of God has changed Israel’s destiny. This verse fully and completely summarizes the memory of the exodus, which is the ground of all that follows. Israel has witnessed God’s decisive combat against and triumph over Egypt. Moreover, Yahweh, with enormous power, has taken Israel up, out of Egypt and bondage. Remarkably, the “flight out of Egypt” has not had as its destination the mountain, the land, or any other place, but “to me.” That is, the goal of the exodus is presented as a flight from Pharaoh to Yahweh, from one master to a new one.

    The metaphor of an eagle for Yahweh’s rescue of Israel from bondage is compelling. According to Deut 32:11-14, the eagle (Yahweh) is a nurturing, protective agent who carries, guides, feeds, and protects (cf. Exod 15:4-10, 13-17). The predominant note concerning the eagle here, however, is one of majestic, devastating power (cf. Deut 28:49; Jer 48:40; 49:27). Thus the image holds together majestic power and protective nurturing. The exodus required both power to override the grip of Egypt and nurturing to sustain when there was no other sustenance. Later on, the same image is used in Isa 40:31 very differently, for now Israel itself is like a powerful eagle that does not grow weary or faint (cf. Ps 103:5). That eagle, however, derives its strength from attentiveness to Yahweh, the one who creates and authorizes soaring eagles (cf. Job 39:27).

    This extraordinary memory (v. 4) now turns to anticipation of life in devotion to Yahweh (vv. 5-6). Two facts of this anticipation interest us. First, the future of Israel is governed by an “if” and by a powerful infinitive absolute; Israel’s future is conditional. Everything depends on Israel’s readiness to listen ([mv sm (; cf. 15:26) and to keep covenant. This strong conditional surprises us after the indicative of v. 4. It is as though the generous God of exodus has abruptly become the demanding God of Sinai; and so it is. While Yahweh’s initial rescue is unconditional and without reservation, a sustained relation with Yahweh is one of rigorous demand for covenant. Indeed, 

     

                                     <Page 834 Ends><Page 835 Begins>

     

    the long Sinai text that follows is a statement of condition whereby this rescued people can be a community of ongoing covenant.

    The second element of the statement is a promise of Israel’s special status. On the one hand, Israel (assuming the conditions are met) is Yahweh’s especially prized, peculiar possession. One can see in this verse the faith of Israel, struggling with the tension between universal claim (“all the earth is mine”) and the special election of Israel. Indeed, these verses may indicate that Yahweh’s own life is a struggle over this tension. Yahweh is indeed the creator who possesses and governs all creation, all peoples. Yahweh also, however, has a special, intimate relation with Israel.

    On the other hand, Israel (assuming the conditions are met) is to occupy a position in the world that partakes both of sacral significance and political authority. The two nouns used are specifically political references, kingdom and nation. Their modifiers, however, move in a sacerdotal direction, priestly and holy. Israel is to be a community in which worldly power and holy purpose converge.95 Israel thus has an unparalleled vocation, and Sinai is the meeting whereby that vocation is to be given and accepted.

    Verses 5-6 are extraordinary, because they manage in a single utterance to voice both an unthinkable purpose that foresees a people the like of which has never existed, and an unaccommodating condition affirming that Israel’s peculiar status is endlessly derivative and never possessed. Israel’s holy distinctiveness depends on moment-by-moment listening to the God who commands and authorizes. Whenever Israel ceases to listen and to keep covenant, and presumes upon its “status,” it forfeits its claim in that moment.

    These three verses, as James Muilenburg has shown, provide the primary themes and the elemental structure for “Mosaic faith.”96 In the long, sacerdotal section beginning in Exodus 25, this link between promise and demand is not forgotten. Israel is to be holy and priestly; obedience to commands is pivotal even in the sacerdotal tradition, which takes such a high view of Israel (cf. 25:16, 22).

    19:7-8.   As the go-between, Moses carries Yah-weh’s message of vv. 4-6 to the waiting community. While the narrative introduction identifies “the elders” as the addressees of Moses, it is “the people” who answer. Israel’s answer is a vow and pledge of loyalty to the commands of Yahweh. Israel has sworn to “really listen” and to “keep covenant” (cf. v. 5). Israel has agreed to its identity and status as subject and vassal of Yahweh, in the full expectation that it will become a new kind of kingdom and a new kind of nation, one marked by priestly, holy marks. This pledge not only binds Israel unequivocally to Yahweh, but also sets Israel apart from all other peoples.

    The oracle of Yahweh, voicing saving memory (v. 4), command (v. 5a), and promise (vv. 5b-6), is matched by the oath of Israel (v. 8). Together the oracle and the oath constitute the foundational acts of Israel’s existence. In this moment, a new people is born into the world. Never before has such an offer been tendered to any people; never before has such an oath been taken. It is on the basis of this oracle and oath that preparations for the meeting now begin.

    19:9-15.   When Yahweh has the oath reported in Yahweh’s own ears by Moses, Yahweh announces a stunning resolve: Yahweh will “come to you” (v. 9). The statement is direct and unconditional. We can see that this initial promise of presence, in the final form of the text, looks ahead to Exodus 25–31, which is preoccupied with the presence of God. Even in this direct statement, however, the intervention of Yahweh is immediately hedged about by “a dense cloud.” Even God’s direct presence will be shrouded in mystery and shadow. The most that is intended is that God will speak and Israel will hear. No possibility of Yahweh’s being seen is offered.

    The intent of Yahweh’s direct speech to Israel is not to secure obedience. Yahweh’s speech is offered, remarkably enough, only as a way to certify and legitimate Moses, so that Israel may “trust” Moses’ words. This text thus has one eye on the authority of Moses and the enduring “office of Moses.” The problem of believing Moses has been present in the narrative very early (4:1-9), but seemed resolved in 14:31. The subsequent protests against Moses (16:2-3; 17:2) suggest that because his requirements are so rigorous, issues of authority inevitably recur. This verse makes 

     

                                     <Page 835 Ends><Page 836 Begins>

     

    clear that Moses’ radical vision is indeed Yahweh’s vision.

    Yahweh’s resolve to “come to you” is a guarded one, protected by “a dense cloud.” As Yahweh takes such precaution that Yahweh’s own holiness should not be trivialized, so Israel must make adequate, careful ritual preparation for this spectacular meeting (vv. 10-15). This is not a spontaneous, intrusive, surprising confrontation, but a paced meeting that will be carefully choreographed. On the one hand, such intentionality suggests that the narrator’s imagination is under the influence of regular worship, so that every meeting with God, including this one, is imagined in this form. On the other hand, this preparation is so that the initial Sinai meeting can be replicated and reenacted, much as Passover replicates exodus or as Eucharist replicates the “last supper.”

    The work of preparation is to become “holy”— qualified to be in the presence of the holy God (vv. 10, 14). The prescribed preparation consists primarily in ritual cleansing. (On such washing, see 30:17-21. The act of ritual washing has become essential as a dramatic enactment to separate the sphere of worship from all other spheres, to assert that this meeting is different and one must be different to be there.) One can detect here the beginning of the distinctions of “clean and unclean” and “holy and profane,” which will come to dominate later sacerdotal thought in Israel (cf. Lev 10:10; Ezek 22:26). One cannot approach this meeting carelessly, as though it were continuous with the rest of one’s life.

    Around the central preparation of washing, we may observe three other facets on “sanctification.” First, the reference to “the third day” likely means as soon as all things are ready and is not to be taken as an exact number. The reference to the third day is perhaps taken up by Hos 6:2, which in turn is influential in the gospel narrative concerning the resurrection of Jesus on the third day. Indeed, “the meeting” of Easter is not unlike a replication of the meeting of Sinai, whereby life begins anew.

    Second, the dire warning culminating in “shall surely die” (tmwy twm môt yûmAt, v. 12) underscores the danger of the meeting and the otherness of God’s holiness. Not only is God’s “person” dangerous but even the mountain as God’s habitat constitutes a great risk for Israel as well. Contact with Yahweh’s holiness can be pursued only under intense discipline.

    Third, in addition to the general notion of cleanness, the final line of v. 15 gives a powerful masculine tilt to the narrative, for contact with a woman will either profane, weaken, or render them impure. While we can only abhor the sexist reference in this text, which treats women as troublesome and men as “proper worshipers,” even this rigorous tradition notices the odd and freighted connection between religion and sexuality; a connection that still operates powerfully among us. That inescapable connection is worth notice here, even though we might propose a very different adjudication of the issue.

    19:16-25.   Yahweh does what Yahweh says. Yahweh had announced an appearance to Israel (v. 9), and now that meeting happens on the third day as Moses had promised.

    What an arrival it is, beyond anything Israel has ever experienced (vv. 16-20). There has been preparation, but the coming seems to override and disregard it. The narrative strains to find language to portray the disruptive, cataclysmic upheaval caused by the entry of God’s own holiness. There are hints here of a storm God, causing thunder and lightning. There is evidence of a cultic rendition with the blast of trumpets. The “thick cloud” seems to join these other two accents. All of these images together are enough to cause the camp to tremble (v. 16), to make the entire mountain shake violently (v. 18). There is now set loose sources of energy, power, and authority so enormous and so fearful that the intended “containers” of God’s presence are unable to contain.

    The coming of the holy one is unutterable. There are no adequate words, yet all we have left from the meeting is a text. The narrator wants us to see so much. In that hidden holiness, however, as words fail to utter, so vision fails to show, and all that is given is fire, smoke, violent movement, and a trumpet louder and louder. Yahweh is an alien presence, a foreboding, threatening, and de-stabilizing otherness. The narrator wants to take us up in awe and terror, in the presence of the holy one who is beyond all portrayal.

    One more time, echoing vv. 12-13a, Yahweh warns Moses about the danger (vv. 21-25). The warning may be pictured in three concentric circles. First, the whole of the mountain is kept (or 

     

                                     <Page 836 Ends><Page 837 Begins>

     

    made) holy (v. 23). Second, the people are warned not to look (v. 21; vv. 12-13 warn them not to touch). It is not denied that God has a visible form. To see that form, however, is enormously dangerous (cf. 33:22-23)! Third, even the priests, the ones who confidently operate in the zone of God’s holiness, are warned to be careful. They must not be complacent or comfortable in the presence of this God. Twice the term “break out” ($rp pAraz) is used (v. 22, 24), as though Yahweh is a contained poison, almost substantive, that will break out to contaminate, destroy, and kill. One is struck in by the tumbling out of words and phrases in these verses, without a coherent picture or presentation. As the speech is untamed, so the God who comes in Israel is untamed, and on the loose.

    REFLECTIONS

    1.  The mountain is no ordinary place (vv. 1-2). It is the dangerous environment of holiness, the place where the ordinariness of human, earthly life has contact with the holy that destabilizes and consequently transforms. We have trivialized “mountaintop experiences” as though they are romantic opportunities for religious self-indulgence. This account, against any such domestication, portrays the mountain of holiness as a dangerous meeting place that will leave nothing unchanged. In his study of theophany, Jörg Jeremias has identified two constant factors in theophanic narrative: a cataclysmic coming and a decisive after-effect of transformation.97 Care must be taken not to reduce, trivialize, or routinize theophany, which here attests to God’s terrible confrontation with Israel.

    2. Israel’s life begins in an oracle of God that is abrupt and without any antecedents (vv. 4-6). Israel is formed by the sovereign speech of Yahweh. This God is as majestic as an eagle, terrible in power, protective of its own treasured people. We are left with the wondrous image of being carried safely (albeit dangling dangerously) out of the reach of bondage.

    The gospel premise of v. 4 is matched by a massive gospel demand of v. 5a. The “if” of v. 5 looms large in Mosaic faith. It is easy to treat the promise of v. 4 and the demand of v. 5 as a dialectic of gospel and law. The imposition of these categories, however, can be distorting. It is enough to see that Mosaic faith, i.e., the canonical core of the Bible, is vigorous in its requirement. The powerful verb “really listen” (“obey”; [mv sAma(), perhaps with an allusion to the tradition of Deuteronomy (cf. Deut 6:4-9), insists that biblical faith focuses on ethical reality. Communion with “the eagle God” takes the form of adherence to the powerful purpose of God, soon to be specified at Sinai but already evidenced in the exodus.

    The memory and the demand lead to the promise of vv. 5b-6. As the mountain is not ordinary and this God is not ordinary, so this people is destined not to be ordinary. The community of faith (synagogue, church) is given a vocation to be a distinct presence in the world on behalf of the world. Specifically, the priestly vocation of this community is to ponder and mediate the presence of the holy God in the midst of the nations, acting to resist any profanation of life that dismisses and banishes the powerful inconvenience of God.

    The language of this promise is taken up in 1 Pet 2:9-10, in an attempt to characterize the early church.

    3. Israel’s response is an appropriate answer to the oracle (vv. 7-8). Israel must decide to accept its odd identity and destiny in the world, and that decision is for complete obedience. The oracle and responsive oath seem to be something like the initial questions asked the bride and groom prior to taking their vows, when each party states the intention and resolve for 

     

                                     <Page 837 Ends><Page 838 Begins>

     

    the relation. In these verses, Yahweh and Israel make an initial commitment to each other that is to be explicated in what follows.

    4.  The preparation of vv. 9-15 is ordered and severe. Our conventional trivializations of God make God in practice too available, too easy, and too immediate. We drop to our knees or bow our heads, and we imagine that God is eagerly awaiting attention. Or we drop in casually for worship, assuming that God is always there. Most of our worship takes place well short of the mountain, where we can seize and maintain the initiative, imagining God at our beck and call.

    This meeting with Yahweh is clearly not one between “buddies.” It is more like a meeting with an inscrutable, remote sovereign in which there is a scheduled preparation, a schooling in required steps, and an ordered ushering from chamber to chamber as the awe intensifies.

    As the monarch enters the room only after everyone else is appropriately in place and waiting, so Yahweh comes only where disciplined readiness is evident. The text asserts that the holy God of Sinai will not come into the midst of our casual indifference. Some other god might, but it will not be this powerful God of liberation who rescues, demands, and promises.

    5.  The meeting (vv. 16-25) is cast as a theophany, a cataclysmic confrontation that destabilizes all conventional certitudes. In a society “explained” by the commonalities of the social sciences and received in the assurances of the “therapeutic,” theophany is so raw and ragged that we scarcely have access to it. Theophany is by definition disruptive. As an alternative mode of discourse, it employs dramatic images in order to say what cannot be said and to witness what cannot be portrayed.

    This raw, pre-rational mode of discourse is crucial for what is uttered in Scripture. First, the pivot points of the Bible are narratives of theophany that witness to the utter holiness of God. Note, for example, the great prophetic encounters with God (Elijah, Isaiah, Ezekiel), the pivot points in the life of Jesus (birth, baptism, transfiguration, crucifixion, and resurrection), and the break points in the life of the church (Pentecost, apocalyptic vision). Our reading of the Bible is often poverty-stricken, either because we exclude these texts as beyond our “realism,” or because we trivialize their discourse with our banal exposition. These texts propose that our lives should also be structured by these pre-rational, dangerous comings of God, which lie beyond our capacity for explanation and control.

    Second, theophany belongs to a faith-ordered human life. Our lives are not to be lived on a flat plane of bourgeois control. We are visited by the holy in both disruptive and healing ways. What Abraham Maslow too easily calls “peak experiences” are indeed definitional for human life. Persons flattened by modernity require a daring mode of discourse and a more venturesome field of images, whereby intrusions of the holy can be accepted as belonging to our human life. Theophanic texts provide access to experiences in the ongoing life of God to which we have no access without such speech. Israel’s sense of humanness does not arise simply from political liberation but from this theophanic incursion that reorders its life.

    In the end, however, theophanic discourse primarily serves neither a liturgic agenda nor notions of human personhood. Theophanic discourse is required in order to speak adequately about the character of this holy God who intrudes dangerously and disruptively in order to transform. This God lives neither in easy intimacy with us nor in remote sovereignty over us, but in odd ways comes and goes, seizing initiative and redefining reality.

    In this dramatic narrative, Yahweh seizes initiative to establish the relation. This text concerns the freedom of God utterly untamed and undomesticated. In the face of all of Israel’s preparations, God is loosed in a sovereignty that evokes trembling. There is something here of Barth’s “otherness,” an other who is decisively present and who insists that all else must be ordered and reoriented around this coming.

    This text seems odd in the bourgeois context of Western Christianity. It witnesses to an 

     

                                     <Page 838 Ends><Page 839 Begins>

     

    extraordinary mountain, an extraordinary God, and an extraordinary people. It invites a reconsideration of our profanation of life whereby we manage and control and leave for religion only innocuous fringes. It models an endangered community that is willing to entertain holiness at its center. The narrative is so dramatic that we may miss its uncommon affirmation. In v. 27, the people “meet God.” In vv. 18 and 20, God “comes down.” This is an entry of heaven into earth, and earth is never again the same. This is an entry of holiness into Israel, and Israel is never again the same. The unloosing (breaking out) of holiness is so odd for us; the only thing odder is that in chapter 20 this holiness is fully mobilized around succinct and measured demand. The God of Sinai is a revolutionary sovereign who invites this prepared people to come under the discipline of the revolution (cf. Luke 1:17).

  • Dan Francis
    Dan Francis Member Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭


    Numbers 5:1–6:27, Camp Legislation to Prevent Defilement

    Link to:  

     

     

     

                                     <Page 56 Ends><Page 57 Begins>

     

     

                                     <Page 57 Ends><Page 58 Begins>

     

     

                                     <Page 58 Ends><Page 59 Begins>

    COMMENTARY

    The legislation in Numbers 5:1–6 builds on the arrangement of the camp and the census in chaps. 1–4. The sections are tied together around the common problem of how Israel is to live in the presence of divine holiness. In chaps. 1–4, the holiness of God in the tabernacle gave rise to the social organization of Israel, the arrangement of the camp around the tent of meeting, and the role of the Levites. Chapters 5–6 present legislation to protect the holiness of the camp from impurity.

    Biblical impurity and its relation to holiness requires definition. The holiness of God creates two different contrasts: sacred versus profane and pure versus impure.61 The contrast of sacred versus profane is the contrast between the holy and the common. It has dominated Numbers 1:1–4. Holiness separates by its very nature. God is holy; humans are not. They are common or profane. Thus care must be taken in bringing the two together. Humans must conform to divine holiness, symbolized as completeness. The quest for holiness requires taking on the order of holiness. The priestly writer’s concern for order in the camp (chaps. 1–4) represents the desire to conform to holiness.

    The dangers of physical and social impurity to the camp are central in chaps. 5–6. God’s holiness remains the central theme. But the contrast is not between the sacred and the profane. It is between health and disease. The quest for completeness is replaced with medical images. Holiness is health. It must be protected from infection, contamination, pollution, and impurity. Contact with a corpse or the acquiring of a skin disease defiles. The medical language also describes the ethical life of Israel. Evil actions are contagious disease 

     

                                     <Page 59 Ends><Page 60 Begins>

    that pollutes and eventually kills the social body like cancer in a human body. The most basic contrast between holiness and impurity is life and death. The holiness of God is life. All forms of impurity, whether physical disease or immoral behavior, are death. The two are incompatible.

    The laws of impurity in chaps. 5–6 are arranged in relationship to the tabernacle. They move from the outside of the camp (5:1-4) to the inside of the camp (5:5–6:21). The laws that focus on life within the camp (5:5–6:21) move in closer orbits toward the tabernacle at the center. Numbers 5:5-10 represents the broadest circle in the camp. It explores social relationships that defile. Numbers 5:11-31 narrows the circle. It turns attention to defilement within marriage relationships. Numbers 6:1-21 represents the smallest circle. It addresses the special human-divine relationship resulting from the Nazirite vow. This vow is the only way a non-priestly Israelite could attain a holy status. The section closes in 6:22-27 with the priestly blessing on the congregation. It is God’s response to the purity of the camp. Comparison to Lev 9:22 indicates that the priestly blessing emanates from the door of the tabernacle, thus completing the movement toward the center of the camp.

    Divine command and fulfillment reinforce the overall design of chaps. 5–6. The list of impurities in 5:1-4 requiring a person to be placed outside the camp is introduced by divine command in v. 1 (“The LORD spoke to Moses”) and concludes with the notice of fulfillment in v. 4 (“The Israelites did so . . . as the LORD had spoken to Moses”). The different laws concerning relationships in the camp are introduced with divine command (“The LORD spoke to Moses,” 5:5, 11; 6:1). They lack the formula of completion, however. The reason may be that they constitute ongoing legislation for the camp, rather than specific requirements to be implemented at the time of command. The priestly blessing on the congregation and the camp in 6:22-27 replaces the formula of completion.

    5:1-4. This section is structured into four parts. It begins with the divine command in v. 1. The content of the command is stated in vv. 2-3a. Three forms of impurity threatening the purity of the camp are listed: (1) a skin disease described in Hebrew as t[rx (sara(at); (2) abnormal bodily discharges from the genitals; and (3) contact with a corpse. Any male or female with these conditions threatens the purity of the camp and must be expelled. Verse 3b states that the purpose of the legislation is not to protect people from disease, but to protect God’s holiness from these threatening conditions. Verse 4 closes the unit by underscoring the completion of the command by the congregation.

    The laws in vv. 1-4 stress that the life-giving power of holiness must be protected. But what exactly is being protected, and where is the conflict? Mary Douglas has argued that laws of impurity are symbolic of larger cosmological realities.62 From her perspective, the point of conflict in Num 5:1-4 is not the specific diseases, but what they symbolize. The holiness of God at the center of the camp gives life that is whole and complete. The order of the camp is an outgrowth of divine holiness; as such, it reflects this abundant life. The camp symbolizes a whole new age of salvation. Following the interpretation of Douglas, we might conclude that the diseases and other impurities listed in v. 2 represent the disruption of the unblemished order of holiness symbolized by the camp. In other words, they represent different forms of “dirt” that must be removed to protect the order (or cleanliness) of the camp.

    Jacob Milgrom takes the work of Douglas a step further. He concludes that each of the three forms of impurity listed in v. 2 represents the power of death in somewhat different ways.63 Thus, according to Milgrom, the conflict addressed in vv. 1-4 is not simply order versus disorder, but the life-giving power of holiness versus death. The contamination to camp members by contact with a corpse clearly illustrates the conflict between holiness and death.

    Defilement from skin disease addresses the same conflict. Although this condition is translated “leprosy” (t[rx sara(at), the term most likely encompasses a variety of skin disorders described in more detail in Leviticus 13:1–14. Once again, it is not the health consequences of the disease that force a person from the camp, but its association with death, which is incompatible with holiness. The story of Miriam in Numbers 12:1 provides illustration. When she acquires sara(at as punish

     

                                     <Page 60 Ends><Page 61 Begins>

    ment for opposing Moses, Aaron exclaims that her condition makes her like one of the dead (12:12).

    The contrast between holiness and death is also the rationale for the impurity of discharge. The Hebrew word for “discharge” (bwz zôb) simply means “one flowing.” Comparison to Leviticus 15:1, however, makes it clear that the context concerns abnormal discharge from the genitals of either males or females. Abnormal flowing of blood and semen, the sources of life, also symbolizes death.

    In summary, vv. 1-4 outline two forms of power and their spheres of influence: life-giving holiness and death. Holiness emanates from God and is located in the tabernacle. Its sphere of power is the camp. The incompatibility of holiness and death demands that all signs of the latter be banished from the camp.

    5:5–6:21. The perspective shifts in Num 5:5–6:21 from signs of death that must be banished from the camp to relationships within the camp that are incompatible with holiness. The topic changes from ritual impurity to moral offenses. The goal of the laws also appears to change. Their aim is no longer to remove threatening persons (or conditions) from the sphere of the holy, but to keep offenders within the camp. Thus restoration for violations of camp holiness is an important aspect of the legislation in this section.

    5:5-10. These verses deal with the breakdown of community relationships. The first part of v. 5 underscores the broadly based social dimension of this law. It is addressed to all men and women in the camp. The violation described in v. 6 with the Hebrew phrase !dah tafj-lkm wc[y yk (kî ya(asû mikkol-hatto)t ha)adam) occurs only in this verse. It could be translated as “wrongs committed against another human” or as “wrongs committed by any human.” The difference is whether the last word in the phrase, “the human” (!dah ha)adam) is interpreted as a subjective genitive (“wrongs committed by any human”) or as an objective genitive (“wrongs committed against another human”). Similar language occurs in Lev 6:1-7 (Lev 5:20-26 MT), where the former interpretation is intended. But the phrase in v. 6 is not exactly the same. The details of restitution in vv. 6-10 suggest that the sin being addressed is one of defrauding a neighbor, which favors the translation “wrongs committed against another human.”

    The issue in these verses is not secular crime, however, but the violation of the sacred. The closing phrase of v. 6 makes this clear. It states that cheating and stealing “break faith with Yahweh.” The Hebrew word “to break faith” (l[m ma(al) in conjunction with the preposition “with/against” (b be ) is precise in indicating some form of sacrilege. God tends to be the offended party when this syntactical construction is used. Thus, for example, Moses is told by Yahweh in Deut 32:51 that he must die on Mt. Nebo and not enter the promised land, because Moses “broke faith [ma(al] with [be] God” when he angrily struck the rock, instead of sanctifying God in the people’s midst (see Numbers 20:1). The reason for the sacred dimension to community relationships in Num 5:5-10 is that the camp is the sphere of holiness. Holiness permeates all action.

    The sacred character of the law is reinforced at the close of v. 6 when the offender is described as “incurring guilt.” The Hebrew word for “guilt” (!va )asm) is a central term in the priestly description of Israel’s cultic system. Guilt is a legal condition. It describes a situation resulting from illegal action. The removal of the condition of guilt requires ritual purification and restitution. The word is used no fewer than four times in vv. 6-8. A verbal form of the Hebrew word )asm is used in vv. 6 and 8, while a noun form occurs in vv. 7 and 8. The noun has at least two meanings in priestly writing. It can designate a particular kind of sacrifice that is meant to alleviate guilt (as it does in 6:12); more specifically, it can indicate the actual content that is required for restitution. Verse 7 illustrates this latter meaning when it states that the one who has stolen must make full repayment “for what he has stolen” (the Hebrew translates literally, “his )asm).64

    The Hebrew verb meaning “to be guilty” is stative. Such verbs do not describe action, but the state or condition of something resulting from action (e.g., you cannot “cold” someone, but you can “be cold”). The stative aspect of the Hebrew verb is rendered in English as “is guilty” or, as in the case of the NRSV translation of v. 6, “incurs guilt.” What the NRSV translation suggests is that defrauding in the camp becomes sacrilege that gives rise to a condition of guilt, which is incom

     

                                     <Page 61 Ends><Page 62 Begins>

    patible with holiness.65 The imagery is medical. Such a person infects the camp with pollution, and a contaminated camp is incompatible with a holy God. The infected person must be cured. The offender must make confession, pay back the principal amount of what he or she stole, and add 20 percent (v. 7). These actions alleviate the condition of guilt created by the theft. Health is achieved. The offender is allowed to remain in the camp and continue living within the sphere of God’s holiness.

    A slightly different interpretation of vv. 6-7 has been offered by Jacob Milgrom, who argues that the Hebrew verb “to be guilty” can take on a psychological dimension when used without an object (as is the case in v. 6). In such instances, Milgrom suggests, the more accurate translation is “feel guilt.”66 Verses 6-7 state, according to Milgrom, that the offender must first feel guilt (become aware of his or her sin). Only then is confession meaningful and the reparation of guilt efficacious.

    Verse 8 clarifies that restitution of theft remains a requirement even after the death of the injured party. The reason given for this requirement is that ultimately God is the offended party. Verse 8 closes by adding that God allocates the guilt offering to the priests. Verses 9-10 comment on the legislation of v. 8 by clarifying which priests receive the donation. The donation belongs to the priest who collects it.

    5:11-31. These verses narrow the focus from relationships between all persons in the camp (vv. 5-10) to marriage. The danger of defilement is no longer defrauding in general, but adultery. The law is stated at the beginning (vv. 12-14) and the end (vv. 29-30) of the legislation.67 It is aimed at a wife, who is suspected of “going astray.” The verb “to go astray” (hfc satâ) in vv. 12 and 29 can mean wickedness in general (Prov 4:15), but v. 13 makes it clear that sexual infidelity is intended. If the charge is true, such a wife is described as being unfaithful to her husband (v. 12) and thus defiled (v. 29).

    The phrase in v. 12 indicating unfaithfulness (l[m ma (al) to (b be) a husband is unique, since (as noted in the Commentary on 5:6) this expression tends to be used to indicate sacrilege, with God as the object. The repetition is certainly meant to relate the two laws. The unique usage in v. 12 may also be intended to indicate that adultery is a violation against God and, hence, a threat to the holiness of the camp. Such a broad interpretation of v. 12 is supported by v. 29, where the act of “going astray” is explicitly said to result in defilement (amf tame)), thereby associating adultery with sacrilege. Genesis 20:6 provides an additional instance of adultery as sacrilege. Abimelech’s potential sleeping with Sarah is described as sin against God. The religious dimension of the law is indicated by its frequent use throughout this section (vv. 12, 13, 14 [twice], 19, 20, 27, 28, 29).

    Verses 15-31 outline a judicial ritual for determining the guilt or innocence of a suspected adulteress. The rationale for the ritual is that adultery is sacrilege. A woman guilty of such an action threatens the camp with contamination, not because she is ritually unclean from sexual intercourse, but because she is ethically unclean from violating her marriage relationship. The aim of the detailed ritual, therefore, is not to assuage a husband’s jealousy (an infraction of civil law), but to avoid defilement of the camp (an infraction of sacred law). The magical character of the ordeal (vv. 15-28) for determining the guilt or innocence of the woman underscores the sacred dimension in which the law is meant to function.

    Verse 15 states the condition for the ritual ordeal. A husband who suspects his wife of sexual infidelity must bring her to the priest along with a special offering, described as a “grain offering of jealousy” and a “grain offering of remembrance.”

    Verses 16-18 outline cultic instructions for the ritual ordeal. The priest places the woman before God (v. 16). He takes “holy water” and mixes it with dust from the floor of the tabernacle in an earthen vessel (v. 17). He also loosens the woman’s hair and puts the special offering of jealousy and remembrance in her hands (v. 18).

    Verses 19-26 prescribe an oath and accompanying sacrifices. The priest recites an oath while holding the mixture of water and dust in his own hands. The oath functions as a curse if the woman is guilty. Her “womb will discharge” and her “uterus will drop.” The woman accepts the oath 

     

                                     <Page 62 Ends><Page 63 Begins>

    on herself by stating, “Amen, Amen” (vv. 19-22). The priest then writes down the words of the oath, washes the parchment in the mixture of water and dust, and makes the woman drink the potion while he sacrifices the grain offering of jealousy and remembrance (vv. 23-26).

    Verses 27-28 indicate that the woman’s reaction to the potion will determine her guilt or innocence. If she is guilty, the curse of the oath will take effect. If innocent, she will be immune to the curse and continue to conceive children.

    The ritual contains technical language that is no longer clear to modern readers. The various descriptions of the offering in v. 15 (“offering of jealousy,” “offering of remembrance,” and “bringing iniquity to remembrance”) lack precise parallels. Reference to “holy water” (!yvdq !ym mayim qedom) in v. 17 is not explained and occurs nowhere else in the Old Testament. Perhaps the combination of water and dust symbolizes life and death. The symbolic significance of loosening the woman’s hair in v. 18 may indicate mourning (Lev 10:6), a state of defilement as in leprosy (Lev 13:45), or shame.

    Even more problematic is “the water of bitterness that brings a curse” (v. 19). The description of this potion is important for interpreting the entire ordeal, since it is the centerpiece of the ritual. Yet no clear consensus has emerged concerning the meaning of the word !yrmh (hammarîm). It is translated as “bitterness” in the NRSV and “bitter” in the NIV, from the root consonants rrm (mrr), “to be bitter.” Other Hebrew roots have been suggested, which result in very different interpretations, including “water of rebellion” from the root yrm (mri, “to rebel”)68 and “water of instruction or revelation,” from the root hry (yrh, “to teach”).69

    The effect of the potion on the woman raises further questions. If the woman is innocent, she will be immune to the negative effects of the potion and will “be able to conceive children” (v. 29). If she is guilty, the potion will make her womb discharge and her uterus drop (vv. 21, 27). Interpreters are divided on the matter of whether the woman is pregnant. If pregnant and guilty of adultery, the phrase would mean that the potion induces an abortion. Innocence would result in a full-term delivery. If the woman is not pregnant and guilty, the phrase would indicate that the potion renders her physically unable to have children.

    The process of the ritual has also prompted conflicting interpretations. Some scholars question whether the text is describing one ritual or a combination of distinct rituals and offerings. Martin Noth separated the text into a meal offering and a drink offering. He also identified three different forms of divine judgment. Holy water held secret power of judgment. The oath, in the form of a curse, could also trigger divine judgment. And the writing of words in a book was yet a third form of judgment.70 More recent interpreters tend to view the text as describing one complex ritual.71 But even here there is debate about whether the ritual should be characterized as an ordeal.

    Such a magical ritual ordeal is unusual in the OT. There are other rituals from the ancient Near East in which guilt or innocence of a person is determined by a water ordeal. In the Code of Hammurabi, for example, a person accused of sorcery must go through a river ordeal to determine guilt or innocence,72 as must a wife accused of adultery by a third party.73 The closest parallel in the OT is Exod 32:20, where a similar ordeal may be implied when Moses makes the Israelites drink water mixed with powder from the destroyed golden calf. Perhaps the drinking of this mixture determined who would be killed by the Levites (Exod 32:25-29).

    Tikva Frymer-Kensky questions whether Num 5:11-31 should be categorized as a trial by ordeal. She notes that the trial by ordeal includes two important features: The god’s decision is manifested immediately, and the result of the ordeal is not the penalty for offense, requiring that the society execute judgment. Numbers 5:11-31 departs from both of these features. The divine decision is not immediately known at the end of the ritual, and the execution of judgment is reserved for God alone.74 The second point is made explicit in v. 31, which states that the “woman shall bear 

     

                                     <Page 63 Ends><Page 64 Begins>

    her iniquity.” The Hebrew of “to bear iniquity” (hnw[-ta acn nasa) )et-(awonah) means that any punishment must come from God and not from the husband or the larger society, thus protecting the woman, to a certain degree, from her husband’s jealousy.

    The drinking of a magical potion certainly provides a strong parallel to the trial by ordeal. The differences highlighted by Frymer-Kensky, however, are significant. At the very least, they accentuate the theological aim of the priestly writers to address the danger of defilement to the camp, which in the end must be determined by God alone, and not by the people.

    6:1-21. These verses describe the Nazirite. The name “Nazirite” comes from the Hebrew verb rzn (nazar), meaning “to separate.” Verse 3 states that a Nazirite is potentially any woman or man from the congregation who makes a vow to be separate or dedicated to God for a period of time. The act of vowing is described with the Hebrew alp (pala)). When used in conjunction with the word “vow” (rdn neder), it means simply “to fulfill a vow.” The verb may indicate the need for an explicit statement by the person making the vow. Martin Noth thought that the verb also expressed an extraordinary pledge to God, since the verb can also mean something marvelous.75 The consequence of such a vow was certainly special ordination. It resulted in lay Israelites’ achieving a holy status. This special relationship between God and humans is the last to be explored in Numbers 5:1–6.

    The holy status of Nazirites means that such persons are divine property during the period of their vow. They are separated out for God. The holy state of Nazirites may exceed that of regular priests. Nazirites occasion a third type of relationship that, if broken, would defile the camp. The purpose of priestly writers in these verses is to address potential problems of defilement that might arise in conjunction with the Nazirite vow. The particular details of the vow and the circumstances under which someone becomes a permanent Nazirite (e.g., Samson or Samuel) are not mentioned. Instead, vv. 1-8 provide enough conditions for addressing two potential situations of defilement. The first concerns accidental contamination from a corpse (vv. 9-12). Exposure to a dead family member, for example, contaminates a Nazirite, rendering such a person unable to fulfill the vow. The second (vv. 13-20) is guidelines for ending the vow and thus leaving the holy state of a Nazirite. The unit closes with a summary in v. 21.

    Verses 1-8 describe the requirements for temporary Nazirite vows. Three restrictions characterize Nazirites during the period of their vow.

    First, Nazirites cannot consume wine or any grape products, including raisins (vv. 3-4). The rationale for this prohibition is not given. George Buchanan Gray has suggested that abstinence from grape products represents a rejection of the settled agricultural life represented by Canaanite culture.76 The story of the drunkenness of Noah (Gen 9:18-29) reflects a similar suspicion of Canaanite civilization. A rejection of agrarian culture in the Nazirite vow may be intended to symbolize intensified dependence on God.

    Second, Nazirites cannot cut their hair during the period of the vow (v. 5). The story of the Nazirite Samson (Judges 13:1–16) illustrates how hair symbolizes strength. Refraining from cutting the hair during the period of the vow and offering it in sacrifice during the closing ritual (Num 6:18) most likely symbolizes the Nazirites’ total dedication to God during their vow.

    Third, the Nazirite cannot touch a corpse (v. 6), because the Nazirite is holy during the period of the vow. Holiness and death are incompatible. Nazirites would lose their state of holiness through contact with a corpse. The Nazirite vow takes precedence over all other relationships, including family. The Nazirite, therefore, is forbidden even to attend the funeral of a parent or sibling (vv. 7-8).

    Once the requirements of the Nazirite vow are spelled out in vv. 1-8, the remainder of the text explores the dangers of defilement to those who undertake the vow. Verses 9-12 focus on cleansing from accidental defilement. Verses 13-20 outline proper procedures for ending the vow.

    The cultic instructions in vv. 9-12 address the problem of corpse contamination to a Nazirite. Exposure to a corpse defiles a Nazirite, making him or her unable to fulfill the vow. The obligation of the vow remains in place, requiring the Nazirite to repeat the period of consecration. 

     

                                     <Page 64 Ends><Page 65 Begins>

    Verses 9-12 are aimed at decontaminating both the sanctuary and the Nazirite, so that the person could begin the vow anew and thus fulfill the obligation to God. The text states that a contaminated Nazirite must undergo a seven-day period of purification, at the end of which his or her hair must be shaved (v. 9). On the eighth day, two turtle doves or pigeons are presented to the priest for sacrifice at the door of the tent of meeting (vv. 10-11). The first sacrifice is a sin offering, which purges the sanctuary from pollution. The second is a burnt offering, which may invoke divine presence. After rededication, the Nazirite presents a guilt offering of a one-year-old male lamb for expiation for the broken vow. Then the vow begins anew (v. 12).

    A second situation in which Nazirites are vulnerable to defilement is the ending of their vow. Verses 13-20 outline the proper ritual for avoiding contamination when leaving the holy state of the Nazirite. The location of the rite is the door of the tent of meeting (v. 13). A complex series of sacrifices is required, including a burnt offering, a sin offering, an offering of well-being, and grain and drink offerings (vv. 14-15). The question arises as to why such a complex ritual is required and, more precisely, why a sin offering is necessary at the close of the period of the vow. Jacob Milgrom, who cites the medieval commentator Ramban (1194–1270 CE), is most likely correct that “self-removal from the sacred to the profane realm requires sacrificial expiation.”77 During the sacrifice, the consecrated hair of the Nazirite was shaved and destroyed in the fire to ensure that it not become the cause of some future defilement (v. 18). The priestly portion of the sacrifice is described in vv. 19-20; the unit ends by stating that after the ritual, the Nazirite can again drink wine.

    6:22-27. A priestly blessing on the congregation closes the section on camp defilement in Numbers 5:1–6. The blessing in vv. 24-26 has been woven into its present framework (vv. 22-23, 27).

    The act of blessing is deeply rooted in Israelite culture. It bears a wide range of meaning. On the one hand, Jacob’s stealing of Esau’s blessing and the latter’s inability to acquire another from his father, Isaac (Gen 27:30-38), provides a glimpse into the near magical power of blessing. In that story, to bless is to bestow power for fertility and well-being, which, once spoken, takes on a life of its own. On the other hand, the expression of divine blessing appears to be no more than a stereotypical exchange for “Hello.” The book of Ruth provides an example of how the invocation of divine blessing was part of the everyday language of greeting, for example, when the harvesters welcome Boaz with the words, “The LORD bless you” (Ruth 2:4).

    The cultic use of divine blessing, as in vv. 24-26, functions someplace between the two examples noted above. The cultic use of the priestly blessing was widespread by the late monarchical period. Similar cultic language is richly attested in other liturgical literature. Psalm 129:8, for example, concludes with a priestly blessing on the worshipers, “The blessing of the LORD be upon you. We bless you in the name of the LORD” (see also Pss 128:5; 133:3; 134:3). The Hebrew inscription “the LORD bless you and keep you and be with you” was found on a jar at Kuntillet ‘Ajrud in the upper Sinai, dating from the eighth-century BCE. This inscription indicates the use of a blessing very similar to Num 5:24-26 already in the middle of the monarchical period. The discovery of the priestly blessing in a burial cave in the area of Jerusalem known as the Valley of Hinnom (contemporary Keteph Hinnom) is even more striking. The blessing is written on two silver amulets that date from the late seventh century BCE. An amulet is an object believed to give magical powers of protection against evil to the one who wears it. The discovery of such an amulet in a grave raises further questions of whether the priestly blessing was meant to function in association with the dead. Baruch Levine suggests that the priestly blessing may have protected the dead on their way to Sheol.78

    The priestly blessing has a simple structure, consisting of three lines, each of which contains two verbs: bless-keep (protect), shine-grace, lift-peace. The name “Yahweh” appears once in each line, in association with the first of the paired verbs.

    Yahweh bless you and keep you;

    Yahweh make his face to shine upon you

      and be gracious to you;

    Yahweh lift up his countenance upon you—

      and give you peace

     

     

                                     <Page 65 Ends><Page 66 Begins>

    Two readings are possible from this structure. The six verbs could be interpreted to describe distinct actions of God. They can also be interpreted in pairs. The first verb in each line summarizes an activity of God upon the worshiper, and the second describes the results of God’s actions. The use of the name “Yahweh” as the subject for only the first verb in each sentence favors the interpretation in which the verbs are paired.79 The result is a threefold blessing. The first emphasizes concrete gifts—blessing and security (guarding). The second stresses the hope that God will be well disposed toward the person (to lighten or shine upon the worshiper) and thus temper judgment with mercy (to be gracious). The third asserts that God will pay attention (lift his face), thus providing fullness of life (peace). David Noel Freedman notes a variety of subtle stylistic devices in the Hebrew that aid in carrying out the meaning of the priestly blessing. These include a progression in the numbers of words (3, 5, 7) and consonants (15, 20, 25) in each line. The progression is framed by an opening (“The LORD bless you”) and a closing (“and give you peace”) cola of the same length (7 syllables in Hebrew).80

    Numbers 6:22-23, 27 frames the priestly blessing within the context of Numbers 5:1–6. These verses take the form of divine instruction for the Aaronide priesthood. Numbers 6:22-23 indicate that the blessing is meant to function as a concluding benediction (vv. 22-23) to the instruction for camp purity in chaps. 5–6. Numbers 6:27 clarifies that it is God (rather than the priests) who blesses Israel.

    The literary setting has puzzled scholars,81 prompting some even to suggest that the text has been displaced from Lev 9:22, where Aaron is also described as blessing the people from the door of the tent of meeting.82 But the function of the blessing as a concluding benediction on the camp and the congregation does correspond to other cultic uses of the priestly blessing in the Psalms (e.g., Psalm 129:1), suggesting that its present context is less arbitrary than many have suspected.

    The overall design of Numbers 5:1–6 provides additional guidelines for interpreting the priestly blessing in its present context. The placement of the priestly benediction at the door of the tent of meeting follows naturally upon the inward movement of the laws of defilement. These laws began with contamination requiring expulsion from the camp (5:1-4), followed by three types of relationships within the camp with the power to defile. These relationships moved in an ever-closer orbit to the tabernacle at the center of the camp—from defrauding in general (5:5-10), to adultery (5:11-31), and through to the Nazirite vow (6:1-21). The location for expiatory rituals has tended to follow the same movement. The laws of defrauding and adultery require that the offender be presented “to the priest” (5:9, 15), while the defiled Nazirite must go “to the door of the tent of meeting” (6:10, 13). The door of the tent of meeting is also the location for the priestly blessing on the congregation (see Lev 9:22).

    The priestly blessing has at least two functions in its present literary context. It provides yet another safeguard against defilement by blanketing the camp with the power of divine blessing. It also concludes Numbers 5:1–6 with a description of the ideal camp. The ideal is where God pays particular attention to persons, where blessing and security drive out the power of death, and where the achievement of wholeness and peace is possible.

    REFLECTIONS

    1. The priestly writers encourage us to reflect theologically on the role of the church in health care. Medical care in modern society is increasingly separated from the life of faith. Doctors operate and prescribe medicine to combat disease. Ministers support the emotional needs of the family and the patient. We acknowledge the importance of both for human health, but the vocations are clearly separated between the physical and the spiritual. The priestly writers would have a difficult time understanding our clear separation of roles. Religion and 

     

                                     <Page 66 Ends><Page 67 Begins>

     

    health are more closely interwoven in their worldview. Their starting point in Numbers 5:1–6 is God as the source of both physical and moral health. Thus religious laws of defilement embrace both bodily and social diseases. Both are signs of death equally opposed by God.

    What would it mean to translate the priestly worldview into our life? Their teaching on social defilement is not all that different from our own. We understand the power of social disease in the contemporary church. We employ the power of God to combat violence, greed, racism, the breakdown of the family, and many other illnesses that plague our society. And we expect God to bring about social change. Our expectations for God are less concrete when we shift from social to physical disease. The priestly teaching on physical defilement and the role of God in healing is more of a challenge. Yet their view of holiness requires that the church be actively involved in health care.

    Employing the power of God to combat physical disease does not put the church in opposition to any other form of medical care. Cancer treatment requires operations and chemotherapy. But priestly writers would say that the church also has its own medicine to combat illness. And the New Testament witness to Jesus supports them. Jesus was a healer. It is one of the few things that both his followers and his opponents could agree about (Mark 4:20-27). This power is passed on to his followers. The sacraments of the church are a repository of Jesus’ healing power. The water of baptism makes us new. The blood and body of Jesus flow in our veins through communion. These sacraments are resources for health to be dispensed freely by the church. Many churches have additional rituals of healing, some involving oil. The priestly writers infuse all dimensions of life with holiness. They encourage us to combat social and physical disease with the same expectation of change. Racism and cancer are both signs of death equally opposed by God.

    2. The priestly laws of defilement are aimed at creating a healthy community. The details of their laws do not apply to the modern world. Skin diseases, semen, menstrual discharges, and contact with the dead are not the significant points to communicate when teaching Numbers 5:1–6. Two principles are important for healthy community. First, laws of defilement are universal to the human condition. They are not aimed at certain classes of people or races. All persons are liable for defilement. Second, the laws of defilement are inclusive in their intent. They are aimed at keeping people in the camp within the sphere of holiness, and not driving them away. Disease is identified so that it can be cured. It is not used to exclude anyone. This is especially evident with the laws of defilement within the camp (Num 5:5–6:21). They are aimed at restoration, not expulsion. It is also true with the laws requiring a person to leave the camp (Num 5:1-4). The larger body of priestly law includes rituals for reentry into the camp for those who have suffered skin disease (Leviticus 13:1–14), those who have had bodily discharges (Leviticus 15:1), and those who have been contaminated from contact with a corpse (Numbers 19:1). A healthy community has God at its center, cares equally for each member, and is socially inclusive.

    3. The ritual ordeal of the suspected adulteress (Num 5:11-31) confronts the contemporary reader with a host of obstacles for interpretation. Much of the language of the text is no longer clear even to experts. The role of magic in the trial by ordeal is foreign to contemporary religious practice, and the unequal treatment of a husband and a wife regarding fidelity in marriage is viewed as unjust in contemporary society. Thus Numbers 5:1–6 forces the reader to think clearly about principles of interpretation. The central task is to determine how Scripture that is historically specific can function authoritatively for a contemporary reader, to whom the text may not only be unclear in its details, but even immoral in its prescribed practice as well.

    The starting point for teaching this text is the association of adultery with sacrilege in Num 5:12. As noted in the commentary, the phrase “to break faith with” indicates that God is the offended party. Thus, even though the husband brings the woman to the priest in a “spirit of jealousy” (Num 

     

                                     <Page 67 Ends><Page 68 Begins>

     

    5:13-15), the ordeal focuses on God and the woman, not the husband. Jealousy on the part of a wife is not mentioned. The limited focus on the husband’s jealousy reflects the patriarchal society of ancient Israel. The priestly writers most likely shared the belief that sexual activity of a woman is an offense against the man, whether it be the woman’s father or her husband (Deut 22:13-29).

    Tikva Frymer-Kensky may be correct that the shift in focus from husband to God as judge is meant to protect the woman from her husband’s jealousy in a patriarchal society. The principle underlying the ritual is that the accused is innocent until proven otherwise by God, in spite of jealousy. The aim of the ritual is to maintain the marriage relationship in a society where men are in sole control. Our ideal of marriage departs from the priestly writers. We seek an even distribution of power between the husband and the wife. But the aim of the priestly writers—to maintain a marriage even at the moment of jealousy—remains an important principle. But their limited application to men is too narrow for us. A contemporary interpretation would expand the principle to include a “spirit of jealousy” in both the husband and the wife. The destructive power of jealousy can infect both men and women in our society in ways that priestly writers could never have imagined.

    4. Drinking “the water of bitterness” presents another obstacle in the interpretation of the trial by ordeal. The ability of the priest to make a potion that releases supernatural powers borders on magic, and “magic” is a bad word in the Judeo-Christian tradition. The God of the exodus cannot be manipulated through incantations or through sorcery (Deut 18:9-14). The power of Jesus cannot be induced through divination or bought with money (Acts 8:9-25). These confessions appear to conflict with the drinking of a magical potion. Why the aura of magic in warding off defilement? What is it about holiness and defilement that forced priestly theologians to incorporate rituals that did not easily fit into their own central beliefs?

    Interpretation must focus on the power of God in the ritual. The point of emphasis is not on the ability of the priest to manipulate God with the use of a potion. It is, rather, on the tangible way in which holiness infiltrates the body of the woman. The setting of the ritual as self-curse focuses only on negative consequences. The requirement that a wife invoke God to destroy her uterus because of a husband’s jealousy is so offensive that we are inclined to stop the process of interpretation. The underlying rationale, however, is worthy of reflection: The ingestion of holy water has health consequences (v. 16). It is the attempt of the priestly writers to communicate the physical effects of holiness that has pushed them to the limit of their theological discourse. Christians continue to share in their uneasy quest. We, too, confess that holiness is physical and that it infiltrates our bodies through tangible sacraments of water, wine, and bread.

    5. The Nazirite vow provides a model for temporary leadership that is grounded in community. The Nazirite vow is a special calling of laypersons for a designated period of time. The content of the Nazirite vow does not appear to be the central point, and the priestly writers provide no reason for undertaking the Nazirite vow. What is emphasized is that laypersons take on a special calling for a limited period of time. It is done in public, and not in private. It is official, requiring rituals of commencement and conclusion, and it has communal and life-style consequences. The Nazirite is required to separate from everyday routine. Separation is not retreat from the world; Nazirites are not hermits. They remain part of the congregation, but their holy status brings them in a closer orbit of the tabernacle at the center of the camp. The Nazirite vow is a suggestive model for laypersons in the contemporary church to commit themselves to a special ministry for a limited period of time.

    6. The priestly blessing (Num 6:22-24) is the most familiar passage in Numbers 5:1–6. The central message of the blessing is stated in the closing Hebrew word, !wlv (salôm), translated “peace.” In English, “peace” connotes the absence of war. It can also describe a state of tranquility. These meanings are also in the Hebrew. But the peace of God in the priestly blessing embraces even 

     

                                     <Page 68 Ends><Page 69 Begins>

     

    more aspects of life, including good health, security, inner harmony, wellness, material prosperity, and a long life. The broad and rich meaning of “peace” in the priestly blessing reinforces the role of holiness in the life of Israel to bring about both social and physical health.

    It was noted in the Commentary that the priestly blessing provides an ideal vision of the camp and that it functions as a conclusion to the laws of defilement in Numbers 5:1–6. The ideal of the priestly blessing continues in contemporary Jewish and Christian worship. It is included in most lectionary cycles as a topic for preaching. The blessing of God also continues to be the last word in many of our Sunday liturgies as a closing benediction.

    The central task in preaching this text is to explore what blessing means. Is the bestowal of a blessing sacramental, or is it no more than a socially polite activity? What is it that we recieve at the close of a worship service? Is real divine power transmitted in blessing, or is the preacher simply telling us that the worship service is nearly over? The latter point creates a problem for interpreting the priestly benediction. Notice how the introduction to the priestly blessing (Num 6:22-23) stresses that only priests can bless. It is not a casual activity. The conclusion (Num 6:27) indicates how close the text is to the world of magic. The author must clarify that the priest does not possess the power to bless independently of God. The need for such clarification underscores that divine blessing has independent power that can be let loose in the congregation.

  • James Thompson
    James Thompson Member Posts: 297 ✭✭

    Hopefully a few more will take the leap of faith and get this work into production. I will try to post another sample later this week. By no means is this some perfect commentary but as far as I am concerned it would be enough if it is all I had, and I can not wait to get it on my computer be it in Olivetree or Logos.

    Dan,

    How far out are we from publication do you estimate? I've followed your support/promotion of this series and am heavily leaning toward a purchase. I just hate being on hold so long after I've ordered it.

  • Dan Francis
    Dan Francis Member Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭

    Hopefully a few more will take the leap of faith and get this work into production. I will try to post another sample later this week. By no means is this some perfect commentary but as far as I am concerned it would be enough if it is all I had, and I can not wait to get it on my computer be it in Olivetree or Logos.

    Dan,

    How far out are we from publication do you estimate? I've followed your support/promotion of this series and am heavily leaning toward a purchase. I just hate being on hold so long after I've ordered it.

    I would love to know that myself. Someone from Logos should be able to tell us, but i have no idea is it 10 more, 5 more, 300 more…  I plan to try to encourage people of the worth of this series by placing a passage or chapter of every book of the Bible up. Will continue till it goes into preproduction.

     

    -Dan

  • Mathew Voth
    Mathew Voth Member Posts: 287 ✭✭

    James, your order gets us one step closer. You know what to do.

  • Josh
    Josh Member Posts: 1,529 ✭✭✭

    I've been curious about this....

    Dan, what is the permitted noncommercial user copyright guidelines for individuals concerning the amount of text that can be copied collectively without the publishers expressed written permission?

  • Dan Francis
    Dan Francis Member Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭

    Joshua G said:

    I've been curious about this....

    Dan, what is the permitted noncommercial user copyright guidelines for individuals concerning the amount of text that can be copied collectively without the publishers expressed written permission?

    That is a good question, if amazon and google are any indication i would guess a fair amount. I am not too worried over it… i certainly won't be posting anything close to even 5% of the work even if i do have one from all 74 books of the alexandrian canon. If i get a letter from abingdon asking me to cease I would of course, but considering this is basically set out to encourage people to buy it I can not see why they would object… the one objections might be to the 2 complete biblical books  but they were still very small parts of the more massive tomes. Only time i ever really had contact with them was complaining that the pre pub price was unreasonable and that it had been stalled out for a long time, i do know i was told the only thing i could do is convince more people to purchase it. Thankfully the price did come down several months later to a most reasonable price but still need more interested. I wish they would have just gone ahead like some other companies have in the past and simply paid to have it put into logos, I did a very extensive survey on bible software from abingdon before registering the NIDB, which is simply web browser based. They know folio is more or less dead, I know MS tried to kill it off shortly after they acquired it, and thought it has been sold, I am not sure of the level of support being offered.

    -Dan

  • Dan Francis
    Dan Francis Member Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭


    DEUTERONOMY 26:1-19, LITURGY AND THANKFULNESS

    Link to:  

     

     

                                     <Page 477 Ends><Page 478 Begins>

                                     <Page 478 Ends><Page 479 Begins>

    COMMENTARY

    The significance and attractiveness of the two liturgical confessions that bring to a close the main legal section of Deuteronomy can scarcely be overrated. Each provides an illuminating glimpse into the minds of the deuteronomists and reveals why this law book has been so influential in the development of both Jewish and Christian thought.

    It should be noted that Deuteronomy 26:1 provides a carefully structured inclusio to balance the opening of the more directly worded instructions for the establishment of a central place of worship in chap. 12. There the primary importance of the sanctuary is declared, with its controlling position in shaping the life of the community in all its aspects. It is described with relative simplicity as a place at which prayers could be made and to which offerings could be brought. It was to be a sanctuary where God would become accessible to the people by the presence there of the divine name. In chap. 26 we have a concluding resumption of the theme concerning the central place worship was to have in the life of every member of the Israelite nation. Whereas chap. 12 provides the means and institutional structure for the religious dimension of Israel’s life, chap. 26 fills this structure with content and ideas. And whereas chap. 12 determines the outward pattern and location of worship, chap. 26 determines the shape of the liturgical prayers, confessions, and theological meaning of worship.

    Most of all this content is set out as an expression of the thankfulness with which Israel was to celebrate before God the immensity of the gift that the divine choosing, calling, and preservation of the nation had made possible. From a literary and historical perspective, it should be noted that, contrary to the widely canvassed view of ~Gerhard von Rad99 that this confessional recital of God’s gracious dealings with Israel had an early origin, its relatively late deuteronomic composition must be fully recognized.100 It marks a late, and revisionist, view of the meaning of worship for Israel, rather than a very early one. It is pervasively and characteristically an expression of the deuteronomic understanding of worship and of the embedding of all social relationships and moral seriousness in this.

    To be an Israelite was to be a beneficiary of a long history of God’s gracious providence and care, which had made slaves into free and prosperous citizens. This is the message that echoes through the confessional recital of the past in 25:5-10a. This summary account has been constructed and worded on the basis of the outline history of Israel’s origins, now contained in Genesis–Numbers. Clearly only a part of the present tradition was available to the deuteronomists, although the main structural outlines had been established in the form with which we are familiar.

    26:1-4. The introductory rubric explains the 

     

                                     <Page 479 Ends><Page 480 Begins>

     

    circumstances in which this confessional recital was to be made. A token gift of the firstfruits of the harvest was to be placed in a basket and handed to the priest at the central sanctuary (v. 2). The priest was then to place this basket of gifts before the altar as a gesture acknowledging that the produce belonged to God. It represents a part of what God had given to the worshiper. The occasion for this action was evidently intended to be the Festival of Ingathering, which took place in the late summer (14:22-29). The whole procedure, which is carefully specified, is an open acknowledgment that the land itself is a gift from God. It has acquired this religious significance because it was the land that had been promised on oath by God to the nation’s ancestors (v. 3).

    The handing over of the basket of fruit and produce is only one part of the prescribed act of worship. Probably rituals that were not all that dissimilar had been performed in honor of the local Baals by non-Israelites. As important as the presentation of the gift was the confessional declaration showing how the land had been given to Israel’s ancestors when they were landless and impoverished.

    26:5-10a. These verses contain what can best be described as Israel’s confession of faith. It was a kind of creed, declaring the story of God’s actions that had shaped the nation’s faith. It anchored Israel’s possession of the land to its knowledge of God and tied both to events from the nation’s past. In this fashion, Israel’s faith was inseparably linked to the territory on which the produce had been grown and elicited from the story of the past a message concerning the nature and purpose of God. It was this message that gave assurance, faith, and hope for the future.

    Such a confession defines the Being of God in an oblique manner by affirming and recalling those actions through which God had become known and accessible to Israel. It transforms a simple act of giving into an assertion of the gracious and generous nature of God and avers yet again the dependence of the worshiper on God for the sustenance that makes life possible. It renounces, by implication, any claim upon God other than that of God’s own gracious and outgoing nature. Israel had been brought into existence by divine grace and continued to be saved by grace alone. In this simple thanksgiving ceremony, the declaration of that grace was reaffirmed as Israel’s continually renewed confession of faith.

    The detailed elements of the historical summary that constitutes this creed are brief and are drawn from the outline part of the story that binds together the narrative of the present books of Genesis to Joshua. The “wandering Aramaean” (the phrase dba ymra [)arammî )obed] conveys the sense of “vulnerable” or “destitute,” since a landless person was without security of food and protection) was Jacob, who had sought refuge from famine in the land of Egypt. It was while he was in Egypt that his descendants had grown to such numbers that they were reckoned to constitute a “nation.” For the deuteronomic authors of this creedal confession, the sheer growth in number of the Israelites is regarded as the primary factor that had elevated them to nationhood.

    This affirmation draws attention to the unexpected omission in the recited account of Israel’s beginnings of any mention of the covenant made on Mt. Horeb (Sinai). In the exodus story, it is especially the revelation of God on the sacred mountain and the making of the covenant between the LORD God and Israel that elevated Israel to the status of nation (Exod 19:5-6). Yet here this status is seen as having already been conferred by the growth in number of Jacob’s descendants. Surprisingly the report of the making of the covenant on Mt. Horeb is passed over in silence.

    For von Rad and Noth, this failure to make reference to the Horeb event was seen as a significant guide to the manner in which Israel’s tradition concerning its past had been built up, with the tradition of the revelation on 

     

                                     <Page 480 Ends><Page 481 Begins>

     

    Mt. Horeb being grafted in at a relatively late stage.101 It is questionable, however, whether this omission is particularly significant and whether it represents a valid conclusion that can be drawn. In any case, once the fact that this creedal recital of the story of Israel’s origins is seen to be a deuteronomic composition, then the basis for drawing such conclusions is largely removed.

    The reason for the absence of any reference to the events of God’s revelation on Mt. Horeb must lie in the theological motives that led to the formulation of this historical summary as a concentration on God’s reaching out to Israel. The Horeb revelation, with its code of commandments, together with the entire deuteronomic legislation, which gave sharper definition to the demands of the covenant, belonged to the sphere of Israel’s response. In this regard, the entire law code of Deuteronomy 12:1–26 is viewed as a spelling out of the content and purpose of the revelation made on Horeb. The covenant at Horeb and the covenant made in the plains of Moab (29:1) are not two different covenants, but two occasions for affirming what is viewed essentially as one covenant relationship, brought about by God’s election of Israel. Seen in such a light, the purpose of recalling how God had stretched out a mighty hand to bring Israel out of Egypt “with a terrifying display of power and with signs and wonders” (v. 8) was aimed at showing that all Israel possessed had been given to it. Israel’s duty to obey these laws was a necessary way of responding to all the privileges to which its continued existence on the land bore testimony. God was Israel’s inescapable benefactor to whom it both had been and forever would be totally indebted. Without God, Israel was nothing.

    We cannot leave aside consideration of the centrality of the importance of land for the larger perspective of the theology of the deuteronomists. Throughout the years in which the deuteronomic movement came into being and through which it had flourished and gained maturity, the threat of the loss of the land had grown in scale to be a major threat. For much of the nation, it had already become a reality by the time this confessional recital was composed. The roots of this aspect of deuteronomic theology are traceable to the shock and alarm that had arisen when the first Assyrian depredations of Israel’s territory had occurred during the latter half of the eight century BCE. By the beginning of the sixth century, when the deuteronomic movement reached maturity, very little of the original territory that had constituted the Davidic-Solomonic empire remained under the control of Jerusalem. In reciting the tradition of how the land had originally been given to Israel, each surviving member of this once great nation was recalling what had been his or her ancestral inheritance.

    This fact lends added force to the emphasis on the manner in which Israel had been brought out of Egypt, “with signs and wonders.” This distinctive deuteronomic formulation (cf. 4:34; 6:22; 7:19; 11:2-3; 29:2; 34:11)102 reflects directly the central theme of the plague narrative (Exodus 6:1–12) and of the providential wonders by which Israel had been sustained in the wilderness. Such actions on God’s part served to provide evidence that the LORD was indeed God and that the exercise of divine power was the reason for Israel’s escape from Egypt, survival in the wilderness, and conquest of the land. It had not been in Israel’s power to achieve these victories, since they were gifts conferred by the power of God.

    Such a theological message clearly had taken on a special relevance at a time when Israel was contemplating the greatness of the past and was staring a more ruinous present in the face. By recalling the gracious divine purpose that had brought Israel into being in the first place, a firm basis for hope for the future was established.

    26:10b-15. The second of the confessional recitals by which Israel was to affirm the giving of firstfruits of the land to God and the tithe of the produce for the upkeep of the Levites and the care of the destitute is more functional. The requirement that Israel should tithe the increase of all its produce annually was established in 14:22, whereas here the tithe is reckoned only at the end of a three-year period. The annual levy is then counted as the firstfruits. No specific reference is made to the requirement that this offering be presented at the central sanctuary, as laid down in 14:23 and 15:20, although this should probably be taken for granted.

    Throughout the chapter the emphasis is firmly placed in demonstrating that the giving of this triennial tithe for the upkeep of the sanctuary servants and the destitute (for the three categories of the needy: resident aliens, orphans, and widows; cf. 1:16; 14:29) was to be fulfilled “in accordance with your entire commandment that you commanded me” (v. 13) and was not a voluntary act of charity. To this extent the confessional recital represents a stringent declaration of the importance of the tithe as a visible expression of Israel’s observance of the law. This con-

     

                                     <Page 481 Ends><Page 482 Begins>

     

    forms also with the requirement that a full declaration be made that the commandments had been kept in their entirety. The offerings had not been spoiled by having been eaten, or set apart, while the worshiper was in an unclean (cultically unacceptable) condition.

    In this fashion the offering of the triennial tithe became an act of wider significance than simply providing support for the ministers of Israel’s worship and giving charitable assistance to the poor. It was a public expression of the religious good standing and the law-abiding faithfulness of the worshiper. To have been negligent in this offering would have had serious consequences for membership within the community as a whole. The effect was clearly twofold: It both reinforced the importance of the tithe as a sign of the willingness to keep the commandments in their full range, and it ensured that the tithe was not reduced to a mere optional extra that could be treated with indifference.

    There is a measure of dignity and open-ended expectation in the prayer with which this second confessional recollection of the past is made: “Look down from your holy habitation, from heaven . . . and bless your people Israel” (v. 15). The past could be remembered with gratitude; the present could be viewed only with anxiety and alarm; the future could now be striven for and secured by renewing obedience to God’s commandments.

    26:16-19. The concluding section affirms that the covenant between God and Israel, the laws for which have been set out in the preceding chapters and give to this covenant a human dimension, has been agreed upon, sealed, and ratified.103 Both parties to the covenant are fully aware of the terms and consequences relating to it and have willingly agreed to abide by them. Israel is therefore already bound to the commandments and has been so since its entry into the land.

    From a literary perspective, this section completes the framework to the laws that began in 12:1, and it links directly to the exhortation by Moses (11:1-32) for Israel to keep the commandments. The preparatory period in the wilderness has come to an end, and now the promises and expectations for the future need to be fulfilled. There is, therefore, a note of dramatic finality about the time reference: “this very day.” The time of preparation is over. The period of fulfillment has begun when obedience must prevail.

    From a formal perspective, there can be little reason to doubt that the pattern of covenant making portrayed here, together with much of the terminology employed, has been drawn and adapted from international treaty making between nations and cities. To such treaties, God, or the respective deities named by the signatory parties, could be invoked to act as witness and guardian. The fundamental difference here is that the LORD God is one party to the covenant and Israel is the other. There is no invoking of third parties to act as witnesses or patron overseers, because the LORD God acts throughout as initiator, guardian, and witness to it.

    At the same time, there is a solemn and serious intent behind the securing of agreement from all the people of Israel. This is further reinforced in the following section (27:1-10) by affirming that Moses was accompanied by the elders of Israel (27:1) and the Levites (27:9), who act as the people’s representatives. All Israel has been drawn into the covenant with the LORD as God since its entry into the land.

    We should not overlook the point that the strongly worded formula insisting that “this very day” saw the covenant bond between Israel and God inaugurated is repeated in each and every day in which Israel continues to exist. A renewed immediacy of the commandments is brought into being every time they are read and remembered. By them Israel must live, and no letup in their importance is contemplated. So the repetition of the today formula in vv. 17-18 carries forward to each new day Israel’s obligation, which forms its response to God’s covenant making.

    It is significant that not only has Israel been bound to God by the covenant and has thereby become committed to keeping the commandments, but also God is bound by what is promised from the divine side. Israel will be set high above all nations (v. 19). The formula that follows is ambiguous whether the reference to “fame, praise, and honor” refers to Israel (NRSV and NIV) or to God (NEB and REB).

    Clearly the text displays a certain level of reticence in suggesting that Israel has a claim on God by which the LORD is bound to bless them 

     

                                     <Page 482 Ends><Page 483 Begins>

     

    and to keep them secure in their land. The divine initiative and sovereignty are carefully protected. Nevertheless, the covenant implies that the bond between Israel and God carries obligations for God as well as for Israel. It is God who has taken the initiative to deliver, uphold, and render holy the people of Israel.

    REFLECTIONS

    Few passages in the book of Deuteronomy have attracted quite so much attention as the short confessional recital of Deut 16:5-10a. The reason for this lies in its history-centered emphasis. It portrays God as “the God who acts” by constructing a brief review of particular past events relating to Israel’s origins, which paints a picture of the love, purpose, and power of God. Without defining the attributes of God in the conventional language of classical theology, it nevertheless infers and implies many of those attributes. So the worshiper can sense that he or she knows God because of events that bear directly on the worshiper’s own experience and perceptions of the world.

    Moreover, because these events are related directly to the situation of the worshiper, making reference to the land on which the crops offered to God had been grown, a bridge is built between the past and the present and between God and human beings. The realization that it was my ancestor who was landless and destitute and that it was my forebears who were slaves and my predecessors who first entered and took possession of this land made faith personal and real.

    Seen in this light, the importance of well-planned worship and a well-structured liturgy becomes obvious. Such worship forms a continuous bridge between the generations and between the unseen world of God and the known earthly realm of home and work. Worship becomes a process of bonding in much the same way that an infant becomes bonded to its mother—through care and contact. Far from such worship’s being an optional extra, it fulfills a vital role in life. It establishes an indispensable sense of identity, relating the individual to the larger community in which life has to be lived and generating a sense of orientation and hope to the environment and its future. All this in a mere half dozen verses!

    To contrast this emphasis on the action of God in directing events with other, especially Canaanite, religious traditions—suggesting that whereas they represented gods of nature, Israel worshiped a God of history—has undoubtedly been a serious misinterpretation of the situation. Undoubtedly it was a widespread feature of much ancient Near Eastern religion, as indeed of religions generally, to claim that a god, known by whatever name, had the power to initiate and control events. It is hard to see how it could have been otherwise if the deity concerned were not regarded as impossibly remote and inaccessible. It belongs to the most basic notion of divinity that gods possess power over events, persons, and processes in this world. At most the contrast suggested has relevance in relation to a degree of emphasis on historical processes or the natural order. In a very real way, most of the world’s great religious traditions have focused attention on the power of God, or the gods, to intervene directly in human activities and affairs, either at a national or a personal level. We can understand that a deity who did nothing at all for human beings would attract few worshipers, since it is the consciousness of divine power that lies at the heart of faith.

    It is scarcely adequate as an interpretation of the specific setting in Deuteronomy 26:1 to contrast the idea of a God of history with a God of nature, since the chapter is directly related to the offering of the fruits of the soil. The very fact that the Israelite worshiper was commanded to recite this short summary of Israel’s early history as an accompaniment to the presentation of a harvest thank offering relates the gifts of nature very directly to the land and to the historical events through which Israel had come to possess it. It is very much a scholarly 

     

                                     <Page 483 Ends><Page 484 Begins>

     

    abstraction to separate too sharply God’s power in nature from God’s power in history, since these are simply modern abstractions by which we grasp our experience of the world in its totality.

    Absolute contrasts between history and nature and between the God of history and the gods of nature, therefore, are mistaken. We can discern a remarkable wholeness and balance in the Israelite confession of faith. God is related personally and directly to each Israelite’s actual situation. Faith is tied indissolubly to the demands, tasks, and necessities of daily life. The world of faith and the world of food, clothing, and territory are one world.

    A similar significance attaches to the omission in this confession of any reference to the giving of the law on Mt. Sinai. In view of all that has been noted concerning the importance of the concept of covenant law to Deuteronomy and the fact that this chapter is clearly intended to serve as a kind of summarizing conclusion to the specific legal parts of the book of Deuteronomy, it becomes unthinkable to suppose that the author quite intentionally bypassed any reference to the giving of the law. Only by taking the confession out of its present context altogether could this assumption be made. To some degree, it is probably this fact that has led the author to give added emphasis to the law in the shorter second confession (26:12-15). This was to be recited in accompaniment to the offering of the triennial tithe, where the bringing of the tithe is a public act of avowing that the worshiper intends to keep the commandments in their entirety.

    Overall the recital of God’s providential care, which has given Israel the land, and the acknowledgment that there are laws that belong to the covenant by which Israel must respond to God belong together. Law and grace are two parallel manifestations of God’s commitment to Israel. Obedience to God is not a way of gaining God’s favor, but a proper way of responding to it. It is because all of life’s most precious assets can be seen as having derived from God that an obedient path of rightly using these assets is a proper human response.

    In the theology of Deuteronomy, special importance attaches to this linking together of law and grace in that the book is deeply committed to emphasizing both concepts. It is because God is gracious that God gives the law. To emphasize one aspect to the detriment of the other or to take objection to Deuteronomy because it places the Ten Commandments so high in the divine scheme of things would be to distort the balance the book expresses. All the more does this become evident when we take full account of the way in which the central law code of the book (chaps. 12–26) is given a historical framework and an epilogue that looks to the future of Israel.

    The very structure of the law code in chapter 12 begins with instructions for the building of a sanctuary and the setting up of an altar where God’s presence would continue to be made available to Israel. This sanctuary would be the location of the divine name, making God accessible to the people, but at the same time providing a center of focus for the people and the place to which prayers could be offered. The same law code then concludes here with a resumption of the instruction to bring to God a thank offering. Law is set within a context of prayer and worship, which themselves form part of the armory of grace that has been given to Israel.

     

                                     <Page 484 Ends><Page 485 Begins>

  • Dan Francis
    Dan Francis Member Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭


    JOSHUA 20:1-9, TOWNS FOR REFUGE

    COMMENTARY

    It may seem at first that chaps. 20–21, the related lists of towns for refuge and the levitical towns, form an addition to the deuteronomistic Joshua, since its conclusion (21:43-45) apparently duplicates the conclusion at 19:51. But 19:51 concludes the grants of land in Canaan, and 21:43-45 concludes the whole of the allocation that began in 13:1. Chapters 20–21 include settlements on both the east and the west sides of the Jordan; thus they mirror the description of the eastern tribal territories in chap. 13.

    Moreover, both chap. 20 and chap. 21 have a deuteronomistic logic in that they fit the known purposes of Josiah’s reform. The towns of refuge are designed to enhance the central power’s control of cycles of violence. Clearly Josiah’s reform was not 

     

                                     <Page 695 Ends><Page 696 Begins>

     

    meant to eliminate or even to reduce violence. But one of its purposes was to take as much as possible of the violence that did occur out of the hands of families and commonalities and put it in the hands of the state. In Athens, Draco’s reform in 621 BCE, the year after Josiah’s reform, had as its main purpose the melioration of the vendetta.

    The levitical towns contribute to Josiah’s control of and solicitude for the Levites. Conceivably the levitical towns are the vestige of a genuinely ancient institution, perhaps going back, as many have suggested, to the house of David’s patronage of a scattered tribe of militant supporters (a hypothesis that is often overly romanticized). Barred from holding arable land (thus limited to pastureland) and, therefore, from turning into a landholding elite, as dependents of the centralizing monarch they could serve in the role of dispersed and intimidating trustees of the central shrine’s law, well known for their militancy and readiness to use violence. However, whether these two chapters are primarily deuteronomistic or priestly in their present form is another question.

    The tension between clan justice, especially as expressed in the blood feud or vendetta, and the prerogatives of central justice, with its interest in the supposed dispassionate weighing of evidence and circumstance, is an age-old theme. In industrialized societies, where large middle and influential upper classes have the benefit of well-developed systems of law, courts, and police, it is sometimes easy to forget how fragile and tenuous the maintenance of social order can be. In theory, people who are relatively poor or racially stigmatized enjoy the same benefits, but their lives often come closer than do those of well-off whites to the disorder, lawlessness, and capriciousness that characterized most societies before the modern era.

    Under such circumstances, the blood feud functions as a form of primitive justice. According to the basic principle, in the absence of police and courts households undertake to avenge the murder of one of their own. The responsibility for revenge falls on kin in the same proportion as for redemption from debt, so that in Hebrew the “redeemer” (lag go)el) is also the “avenger.” Justice is a private matter. In practice, blood guilt serves more often as the basis for a negotiated settlement with compensation than as a justification for answering one killing with another. People usually—not always—prefer to work things out rather than pursue the potentially endless cycle of revenge and counterrevenge. This is important, because it relates directly to the purpose of the biblical towns of refuge, which represent a kind of compromise between private justice and monarchic justice, which in the deuteronomistic conception is overseen by a controlled magistracy.

    While the institution of assigned urban asylums seems to make sense, it has the look of idealistic central planning often found in biblical law. The term used for “asylum” (flqm miqlat) occurs only in reference to these towns in priestly texts (Numbers 35:1; 1 Chronicles 6:1; and priestly parts of Joshua 20:1–21). There are no stories or historical accounts in the OT in which such towns appear. Elsewhere in the OT, asylum is provided by altars, as prescribed in the ancient law in Exod 21:13-14 (cf. 1 Kgs 1:50; 2:28). Outside of deuteronomistic or priestly legislation, such altars might be available practically anywhere. It is likely that the idea for asylum towns originated with the deuteronomists, forced on them as a repercussion of their radical law of centralization: The monarchy must support asylum; if altars outside Jerusalem are now illegal and, therefore, no longer available for asylum, something must take their place, and that something cannot depend on the availability of altars (cf. Deut 19:6, which recognizes distance to asylum as the problem).

    Moses’ order for asylum towns is given in two places, Deut 19:1-13 and Num 35:9-34. The deuteronomistic law calls for assigning three towns in the three main regions of highland Canaan, and another three towns if the east bank of the Jordan is conquered. The conquest of the east is described in Deut 2:26–3:17, so the three asylum towns there are designated already in Deut 4:41-43, one for each tribal territory. They are apparently major towns in the seventh century BCE, but none is mentioned in Joshua other than in chap. 21, where all the towns of refuge appear also in the list of levitical towns. The towns to the west are assigned by region rather than by tribe; Hebron and Shechem are the traditional centers of their regions (“Ephraim” [20:7] is used broadly, since Shechem belongs to Manasseh [17:2]), and Kedesh in Galilee serves for the 

     

                                     <Page 696 Ends><Page 697 Begins>

     

    deuteronomist the same northern urban and strategic functions as Dan did for the kings of Israel.128 Killers who flee to one of these towns turn their case over to the magistracies of both the asylum town and the town of the person killed.

    There is nothing in the priestly law that indicates the existence of asylum towns before Josiah’s reform, even though there is no doubt that earlier monarchs wanted to control the vendetta. The protection of Cain at the beginning of the J strand (Gen 4:1-16) is an early reflection of this concern. However, several significant elements appear in the priestly law that are not in the deuteronomistic law. One is that the killer’s justification for initial asylum is strictly defined rather than being left mostly to the town’s magistrates. Second, the case is quickly brought to trial before the “congregation,” the priestly concept of the collective of all Israel. Third, killers judged innocent of murder by the congregation may return to their asylum and must remain there “until the death of the high priest,” when they can return home.

    Both versions of the law of asylum are evident in Joshua 20:1, but an important textual variation affects the interpretation of these two versions and their origin. In the LXX, 20:4-6 is almost entirely missing; there the text of 20:1-3, 6 states simply that the towns required by Moses are to be designated so that the killer “without intent” (NIV, “accidentally”) may flee there until there is a trial before the congregation. The phrase “by mistake” (NIV, “unintentionally”) is missing from the LXX. Now “without intent” occurs in Numbers 35:1 and “by mistake” in Deuteronomy 19:1. It has also been noticed that the LXX text looks like it is based entirely on the priestly version of the law and that the longer MT version shows apparent deuteronomistic additions that have no part in the priestly law, not only “by mistake” (there is no “or” in the Hebrew text), but also the negotiations between killer and town magistracy by which they must make a preliminary judgment in the case, before it goes before the “congregation” (20:4-5).

    Some have regarded the magistrate’s preliminary judgment as seriously inconsistent with the priestly law. Believing that the LXX version of Joshua 20:1 preserves a consistent understanding of the law, they reason that it represents, excepting one or two phrases, the earlier form of Joshua 20:1, and therefore that the earlier form follows the priestly rather than the deuteronomistic law.129

    It is important to remember, however, that people have an interest in making an institution like the asylum towns work and in order to do so would have to be willing to give a killer the benefit of the doubt in a preliminary trial. With this in mind, the simpler explanation is that the MT of Joshua 20:1, the version familiar from the translations, represents the text’s pre-LXX form (a deuteronomistic text with later priestly supplements) and that the shorter LXX text represents the alterations of a later scribe who had no particular need to see the system work. This scribe was disturbed by an apparent inconsistency between Deuteronomy 19:1 and Numbers 35:1 and, assuming that with the more determinate priestly law at the magistrates’ disposal no preliminary trial would be needed, removed it, along with the vague “by mistake.” In sum, the deuteronomistic version is more workable, the priestly version more defined, organized, and indeed centralized, but at the same time more theoretical; the MT represents the usual combination of the two on a deuteronomistic base, the LXX a revision in the direction of priestly strictness.130

    REFLECTIONS

    People who live in the so-called developed world, especially those who are not poor, may tend to take for granted the degree of basic law and order, or social peace, that they enjoy as the result of belonging to a comparatively democratic, wealthy, and well-policed society. There is vast room for improvement in the policing of society in developed countries, but compared with early agrarian and present-day poorer societies, the majority of their inhabitants 

     

                                     <Page 697 Ends><Page 698 Begins>

     

    are fortunate. Because we do not have to worry daily about ongoing vendettas, we may underestimate the boon that any attempt to control them, as with the town of refuge, represented. Such refuge may have been indispensable in the absence of effective alternatives.

  • Thankfully the price did come down several months later to a most reasonable price but still need more interested.

    Concur => New Interpreter's Bible (12 vols.)  needs more pre-orders to change status from "Almost There !" to "Under Development".

    Thankful placing a pre-order does not charge credit card.  When resource ships, then card is charged, plus have 30 day option to seek a refund.  Although with so many NIB samples, should know whether NIB would be a useful addition to your Logos library.

    Keep Smiling [:)]

  • Dan Francis
    Dan Francis Member Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭


    Judges 10:6–11:11, Israel, the Lord, and Jephthah

    Link to:  

     

     

                                     <Page 822 Ends><Page 823 Begins>

     

     

                                     <Page 823 Ends><Page 824 Begins>

    COMMENTARY

    The two scenes that begin the Jephthah narrative function as mirror images. In the first scene (10:6-16), the Lord rebuffs Israel for asking for help after the Israelites had earlier rejected the Lord: “You have abandoned me and worshiped other gods” (10:13). In the second scene (10:17–11:11), Jephthah rebukes the elders of Gilead for asking for his help after the elders had earlier rejected him. His words closely resemble the words used by the Lord: “Are you not the very ones who rejected me?” In spite of the initial rebuke, however, both scenes end with the Lord and Jephthah responding favorably to the pleas for help. Although similar, these paired scenes also illustrate a crucial distinction. The Lord responds graciously to Israel’s cry of distress with no appreciable benefit to the Lord. In fact, Israel increasingly rejects the Lord in favor of other gods in spite of the Lord’s favor. On the other hand, Jephthah’s response to the cries of distress leads to his elevation from the status of a rejected son of a prostitute to “the head and commander” of the people of Gilead. God acts out of unrequited love, while Jephthah acts out of self-interest.

    10:6-16. The Jephthah cycle opens with the usual introductory description of Israel again doing “what was evil in the sight of the LORD.” However, the nature of the evil involving the worship of other gods has worsened. In the previous era of Gideon, Israel had worshiped only Canaanite or Amorite gods (6:10, 25; 8:33). In the era of Jephthah, the Israelites extend their religious devotion to a virtual supermarket of foreign gods from Canaan, Aram, Sidon, Moab, Ammon, and Philistia (v. 6). As punishment for their increasing disloyalty, the Lord allows the foreign nations of Philistia and Ammon to oppress Israel for eighteen years. As in the other judge episodes, the Israelites “cried to the LORD” for help (v. 10; see 3:9, 15; 4:3; 6:7).

    But this time the Israelites add something to their typical cry for aid. They speak words of repentance and remorse for their sinful ways: “We have sinned against you” (v. 10). Israel has never confessed its sin in this way before in the judges stories. Unfortunately, the condition of the people has deteriorated to such a state that the Lord receives these words of repentance as a shallow ploy to manipulate God. The words do not convince the Lord in the light of the repeated backsliding of Israel in the past. God had saved the Israelites from seven different oppressors in the past. Yet, each time the Israelites had rejected the Lord and returned to worshiping the gods of those same oppressing nations (cf. v. 6 and vv. 11-12). Thus the Lord comes to a startling and terrifying conclusion: “therefore I will deliver you no more” (v. 13). The divine pronouncement is Israel’s death sentence. Without God’s presence and deliverance, Israel is doomed. The Lord urges Israel to “go and cry” for help from these other foreign gods that Israel had repeatedly worshiped. “Let them deliver you” (v. 14).

    The Israelites are persistent, however, and beg God with a second word of repentance (v. 15). Moreover, the Israelites bolster their words with action: They “put away” their alien gods and worship the Lord. The next line is crucial, but its meaning is debated. The Lord “could no longer bear to see Israel suffer” (v. 16). Many commentators assume that Israel’s actions and words have convinced the Lord of Israel’s genuine and deep remorse. This profound repentance, they argue, is what causes the Lord to alter the earlier pronouncement of never again delivering Israel. Another biblical example of this divine change of heart in response to human repentance to which these commentators point is that of the city of Nineveh in the book of Jonah. The inhabitants of Nineveh repented after hearing Jonah’s words of doom, and their repentance caused God to spare the city from destruction (Jonah 3:10; see Jer 18:7-8). Many commentators conclude that the same dynamic is at work here.44

    However, the Lord’s reaction in v. 16 is more ambiguous and indeterminate than such an interpretation allows. The verb translated “to bear” (rxq qasar) often carries connotations of frustration, loss of patience, anger, and exasperation (Num 21:4-5; Zech 11:8-9). It is the verb used when Samson becomes so exasperated with Delilah’s constant nag-

     

                                     <Page 824 Ends><Page 825 Begins>

     

    ging that he reveals the secret of his strength (16:16). Thus one might well read the Lord’s response in v. 16 not as God’s joyful agreement to deliver Israel because of its genuine and sustained repentance. Rather, the Lord knows that this repentance will again be temporary and shallow, but the Lord in total exasperation and anger “cannot bear to see Israel suffer.” It is Israel’s suffering, not Israel’s deep repentance, that motivates any potential change in the Lord’s plans.45 We assume that God will somehow reluctantly intervene. However, the text does not say that the Lord immediately raises up a deliverer as in the earlier judge stories. The reader is left to wonder how God is involved in the next series of events and whether those events will lead to Israel’s deliverance from its enemies. As we shall see, this ambiguity about God’s role in the judgeship of Jephthah is the first of a number of indeterminate moments in the story of Jephthah the judge.

    10:17–11:11. The next scene opens with the Ammonite army getting ready to fight Israel. Meanwhile, the Israelites in the Transjordan region of Gilead are frantically scrambling to find a military leader who is willing to fight the Ammonites. They offer a reward to the one who will step forward: “He shall be head over all the inhabitants of Gilead” (10:18). The narrator interrupts the flow of the story to introduce a “mighty warrior” named Jephthah. Jephthah is an Israelite from Gilead, but he has some deficits according to Israel’s social code: He is “the son of a prostitute,” an outcast from his family, and a leader of outlaws who raid villages in the foreign “land of Tob” for a living (10:1-3). Jephthah’s character reminds us of the ill-fated Abimelech, who was the despised son of a concubine (8:31), in conflict with his other brothers (9:5), and the leader of outlaws (9:4). These associations with the negative figure of Abimelech do not bode well for Jephthah’s future, but in the end (unlike Abimelech) he will be called one who “judged Israel six years” (12:7).

    In 11:4, the narrator returns to the story about the Ammonites’ making war on the Israelite people of Gilead. Although the Gileadites had earlier rejected Jephthah as one of their own, the elders of Gilead beg Jephthah in their distress to return home and save his people from the Ammonite oppressors. Just as Israel had earlier rejected God and then returned to call on God for help, so also the people of Gilead return to call on Jephthah for help. Jephthah asks a legitimate question: “Are you not the very ones who rejected me?” But the Gileadites insist and offer Jephthah the position of leader “over all the inhabitants of Gilead” if he conquers the Ammonites. Jephthah then accepts the offer to fight the Ammonites with a condition that links his mission with the Lord’s plan: if “the LORD gives them over to me” (11:9). This is Jephthah’s first vow involving the Lord; his second vow will be more problematic (11:29-40). The elders of Gilead then pledge, “The LORD will be witness between us,” and the deal is struck “before the LORD at Mizpah” (11:9-11). This sudden cluster of references to “the LORD” suggests to the reader that Jephthah may indeed be the Lord’s chosen agent to deliver Israel in spite of his questionable character. Our interest is piqued and focused on this ambiguous character, who is both “mighty warrior” and “son of a prostitute,” both pious adherent to the Lord and shrewd negotiator for his own interests.

    REFLECTIONS

    1. Israel’s words of repentance and God’s refusal to accept the repentance as sufficient or genuine invite reflection on the role of human repentance in motivating God’s forgiveness and acts of compassion. God often does accept repentance and a change of heart as sufficient grounds to grant a person or group mercy and compassion. The psalmist reminds us that “the sacrifice acceptable to God is a broken spirit;/ a broken and contrite heart,/ O God, you will not despise” (Ps 51:17 NRSV). God speaks through the prophet Jeremiah in a similar vein: “At one moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break 

     

                                     <Page 825 Ends><Page 826 Begins>

     

    down and destroy it, but if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will change my mind about the disaster that I intended to bring on it” (Jer 18:7-8 NRSV).

    Yet even in cases of true repentance and God’s change of mind concerning judgment, the repentant people sometimes must still suffer negative consequences from their misdeeds. For example, God forgave the Israelites for their worship of the golden calf at Mt. Sinai (Exod 32:10, 14). However, some of the Israelites still suffered death and a plague for their sin (Exod 35:25-28, 34-35). Later in the wilderness, Moses’ appeal to God’s merciful nature caused God to forgive Israel’s sin of refusing to enter the promised land of Canaan (Num 14:10-20). But again severe consequences accompanied the forgiveness: The old generation of Israelites would have to die in the wilderness, and God would allow only a new generation of Israelites born in the wilderness to enter the land of Canaan (Num 14:21-35).

    At other times in the Bible, words and even actions that display human repentance have no effect on God. At times, the people have become so corrupt and disloyal at their core that no hope for true and sustained repentance seems possible. An important example is God’s indictment of Israel’s shallow repentance in Hos 5:8–6:6. Israel utters words of repentance, but God knows these words are manipulative, hollow, and not heartfelt. God seems genuinely at a loss on how to turn Israel around:

    What shall I do with you, O Ephraim?

    What shall I do with you, O Judah?

    Your love is like a morning cloud,

    like the dew that goes away early. (Hos 6:4 NRSV)

    A classic example of Israel’s shallow repentance is recorded in Jeremiah 34:1. The prophet Jeremiah proclaimed doom on the city of Jerusalem and its king, Zedekiah. As a result, the king issued a decree setting all Israelite slaves free in accordance with a widely ignored biblical law that commanded the periodic release of all Israelite slaves. The king hoped the freeing of Israelite slaves would demonstrate to God that Zedekiah and his people were truly repentant. This in turn would motivate God to deliver Israel from the Babylonian army, which had surrounded the city. However, when the Babylonian army got up and left for a time to attend to another crisis elsewhere, the Israelites immediately rescinded the decree and took back all their slaves once again. God angrily denounced Israel’s shallow repentance and promised that the Babylonian army would return to destroy Jerusalem (Jer 34:12-32). Israel had become so rebellious at its very core that it was no longer capable of sincere and sustained repentance. That is the situation in which we find Israel in Judg 10:10-16. At this point, Israel has rejected the Lord so many times after the Lord’s repeated interventions to save Israel that Israel can no longer be trusted.

    The Bible is well acquainted with the full range of human responses to God’s compassionate and loving nature. Sometimes God’s love causes a person to see the error of his or her ways and to begin a whole new life of faithfulness and obedience (Luke 19:1-10). More often, God’s promise and love may begin a process of slow growth and change, with ups and downs that offer glimpses of genuine repentance that may not be fully realized on this side of the grave. Major biblical figures like Abraham, Jacob, and King David, for whom we have more biographical detail, offer realistic examples of lives of faith that sometimes falter. At other times, an individual or community may reach a point of such degradation or entrapment in misguided rebellion or sinfulness that they may be incapable of true and lasting repentance. Like an addict who will say anything to get another fix or an abuser who will deny everything to avoid exposing an awful secret, people can become almost hopelessly entangled in their self-delusions and manipulative ploys. The only resort to genuine transformation in such cases is to “hit bottom” so that the lie is exposed, the truth is set free, and the old pattern reaches an end. In such extreme cases, only then does new life have a chance to emerge as a genuine possibility. This is where the book of Judges is heading. Israel will hit bottom in chapters 17–21 as the 

     

                                     <Page 826 Ends><Page 827 Begins>

     

    social fabric of Israel will disintegrate and its sense of faith and morality will descend into chaos. People of faith need much wisdom and much humility when they try to discern at what point they and those with whom they minister stand on the continuum of human repentance. Is it genuine, partial, or a shallow manipulative ploy? In some cases, we may need to leave judgments concerning the genuineness of human repentance to God’s wisdom when our own insights in such matters reach their limits.

    2. One of the most remarkable features of the Lord’s response to Israel’s shallow repentance is that the Lord does not simply abandon Israel entirely. Instead, the story reports that God “could no longer bear to see Israel suffer” (10:16). This is a word of grace in the midst of human failure. Even though Israel deserves to be oppressed by the very nations and foreign gods whom they had worshiped, the Lord is moved to save them from the punishment the Lord had imposed. The manner of God’s salvation in this particular case is not immediately apparent. Such bewilderment and unclarity are often what we experience when we stand in the midst of a time of trial and suffering. Where is God in this? How will God act to save? In the midst of our wonderment, we can be supported by the knowledge that God cannot bear too long to see God’s people suffer, no matter how deserved the suffering may be. We can hope and expect that God will not allow us to undergo more difficulty or trial than we can endure with God’s help (1 Cor 10:13).

    3. God has used many unlikely people to accomplish God’s purposes throughout the book of Judges. God’s agents have included a left-handed assassin named Ehud, a woman judge and prophet named Deborah, a non-Israelite woman named Jael, and a timid Gideon, who was the weakest of the weak. Yet Jephthah appears to be the most unlikely person of God among them all. He is the son of a prostitute, an outcast from his own family, and the leader of a band of outlaws. He is also a sly negotiator as he gains for himself the position of leader of all Gilead in return for his willingness to fight Ammon. At the same time, he acknowledges the Lord’s role in giving him victory over Ammon (11:9) and brings his political covenant with the elders of Gilead into the realm of religious faith (11:11). We are left wondering at this point whether Jephthah, at his core, is a genuinely good and faithful person who has simply made the best of the unfortunate circumstances of his life, which were beyond his control. Or is Jephthah a cynical politician who is looking out only for his own interests, using religion to mask his quest for political power and position? Even by the end of the story of Jephthah, we will not be able to answer these questions definitively. Jephthah will remain an ambiguous character. Yet God will use him to judge Israel for six years (12:7), and Jephthah will be listed in the New Testament Letter to the Hebrews as one of Israel’s heroes of faith (Heb 11:32). God does not use plastic saints but flesh-and-blood sinners to work God’s will in the world. That may be a comforting word of reassurance for those who yearn to be useful to the purposes of God and yet who know all too well their own failures and inadequacies.

  • Dan Francis
    Dan Francis Member Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭


    2 Samuel 12:15b-25, The Death of the Child of David and Bathsheba

    Link to:  

     

     

                                     <Page 1296 Ends><Page 1297 Begins>

    COMMENTARY

    This segment of the text leaves the didactic style of Nathan’s prophetic oracle and returns to a storytelling mode. This section may be the original continuation of 11:27b, before the prophetic addition of Nathan’s confrontation with David. The death of David and Bathsheba’s child becomes only the first of a series of tragic experiences of death and/or violence in David’s family. Moreover, we now understand these experiences in the light of Nathan’s pronouncement of God’s judgment on David. David’s confession reclaims his own life, but such reclaiming is costly. David’s own life continues in the midst of the deadly realities he has himself introduced into his own personal story. The first costly experience of this deathly presence in the royal household comes in the death of the son conceived in David’s adulterous liaison with Bathsheba. Nathan had already said that the child would die (v. 14). Verses 15b-23 narrate the events surrounding the child’s death. Verses 24-25 anticipate a new future and new life with the birth of Solomon, whom the Lord loves and who will become the first king in an ongoing dynasty from David.

    12:15b-23. The opening of this bitter story leaves no room for doubt: “The LORD struck the child that Uriah’s wife bore to David, and it became very ill” (v. 15b). The death that David brought to another family now enters his own. In the view of this narrator, there was a cost to be paid, and the Lord is the agent exacting the moral cost of David’s deathly crimes. Since the price is the life of a child, we may find this view of God difficult to understand and accept, but the text does not address this issue.

    The narrative focuses on David. By now we should not be surprised at this. David is clearly attached to the child and pleads with God for the child’s life (v. 16a). The conception of this child altered the life of king and kingdom. To have lost so much and then lose the child as well seems unbearable. David refuses food, keeping vigil through the night, and his servants become distressed, urging him to eat (vv. 16b-17). After seven days, the child dies, and the servants are afraid to tell David. They fear that his grief will deepen and that he may even do himself harm (v. 18). David perceives the reality of the moment without being told. He asks his whispering servants if the child is dead, and they confirm that it is so (v. 19).

    It is at this point in the story that David’s actions confound his servants (and readers). Custom dictates that mourning should begin, with its attendant lamentation and ceremonies of grief. Instead of these expected practices, David begins a series of purposeful activities not usually associated with a time of mourning (v. 20). The verbs dominate the story: David rose, washed, anointed himself, changed clothes, entered the house of the Lord, worshiped, went to his own house, requested food, and ate. In short, David resumed his life and the practices of his customary routines.

    His servants, who were disturbed over David’s unrestrained distress during the child’s illness, are equally dismayed at his behavior after the child’s death. David has reversed the usual custom. His servants cannot restrain themselves. “What are you doing?” they ask (v. 21). David’s response shows a remarkable ability to face the realities of life and death and his own complicity in those things that make for life and death. He fasted and wept while the child was ill in petition for the graciousness of God and in hope that God’s mercy would grant the child life (v. 22). But when this was not to be, David accepted the reality of death and rejected fasting and weeping in favor of relinquishment and resumption of life (v. 23). He refuses to bow to the power of death and accepts his inability to restore his son. “I shall go to him, but he will not return to me” (v. 23b).

    Walter Brueggemann has seen in this story one evidence of a new portrait of humanity that emerges in the story of David. David is the model of God’s “trusted creature” who acts with boldness and freedom to claim the gifts of life with which humanity is trusted.

    David’s reaction to the death of his child and thus to the reality of all death is not to be viewed as stoic resignation. . . . David has a fresh view of the meaning of life and death, where his proper hopes and proper fears are to be located. This is more than a violation of common practice. It is an act of profound faith in the face of the most precious tabus of his people. David had discerned, for whatever reasons, that the issues of 

     

                                     <Page 1297 Ends><Page 1298 Begins>

     

    his life are not to be found in cringing fear before the powers of death, but rather in his ability to embrace and abandon, to love and to leave, to take life as it comes not with indifference but with freedom, not with callousness but with buoyancy. . . . For him there is none of the conventional paralysis in death. He knew death belonged legitimately to history, and he had no illusions about entering some kind of faith which did not know death.301

    12:24-25. David’s affirmation of life in the face of death is followed by a report of new life. In rapid succession, David comforts Bathsheba, goes to her, lies with her, and she then bears a second son (v. 24a). This is the first time since Bathsheba was introduced (11:3) that she is named in her own right and not referred to as “the wife of Uriah.” In the birth of this second child, she becomes more than the occasion for David’s sin. In fact, Bathsheba is later to play a very active role in helping this son succeed to the throne of David (1 Kgs 1:11-31).

    This son is named Solomon (v. 24b), a name usually associated with the word !wlv (salôm, “peace,” “wholeness”). This is an ironic name in the light of the events that preceded his birth, but perhaps it should be seen as the “peace/wholeness” hoped for in the new beginning of his birth. That this is a genuine new beginning with hope of a new future is affirmed by the notice that “the LORD loved him” (v. 24b). Further, God sends the prophet Nathan, this time as a bearer of hope rather than judgment. Nathan names the child “Jedidiah,” a name that means “beloved of the LORD [Yahweh]” (v. 25). This name is not used elsewhere about Solomon and may be considered a private name, while “Solomon” was to be the child’s throne name as Israel’s third king.

    The consequences of death and violence unleashed by David’s sin are not yet played out. Tragic events lie ahead, but this notice already foreshadows that the promise of dynasty to David will remain firm and that Solomon need not carry into his own reign the judgment given to his father. Indeed, this may be part of the purpose of this entire narrative: to show that the sins of David have been judged and paid for. Solomon and the Davidic dynasty are free from guilt.

    REFLECTIONS

    1. This is a difficult story for modern readers in the church. We do not wish to think that the lives of innocent children are exacted by God as punishment for a parent’s sin. But this text assumes that all things ultimately come from God, including the illness of this child. From this point of view, all deaths are a part of the mystery of God’s providence. God can and does use the circumstances of our lives to further the purposes of divine grace and judgment. This story does not, however, make a generalized claim about the deaths of all children.

    The emphasis in this story is on David, who thought he could be the controller of life and death for his own ends, but must now discover that he is not autonomous and cannot control life and death, even though he is the king. Life and death exist in human history as a part of the mystery of God’s providence, and not as a matter to be taken into human hands.

    What also offends modern readers is the total focus on David. It is David who is the subject of this narrative—his loss, his grief, and finally his response in the face of the tragic cost. The child and Bathsheba are only elements of the plot in this episode of David’s story, and they are not even named. This storytelling is simply endlessly fascinated with David and his meaning for Israel. This is less an intentional belittling of other characters in the story than a mark of the enormous importance David came to hold for Israel. That attention still focuses on David even in these episodes of sin, judgment, loss, and pain is a remarkable testimony to the ability of Israel’s storytellers to face the realities of David’s weakness and vulnerability while yet affirming his vitality and importance in Israel’s story. This suggests that the tradition about David has something to teach us in observing his vulnerable moments and not simply in celebrating his triumphs.

     

                                     <Page 1298 Ends><Page 1299 Begins>

     

    2. This story reminds us that in the community of faith, life always has a further word to speak. There is something about the death of a child that heightens the offense of death. Life is unexpectedly cut short. Such a death seems unnatural, unfair. It is surely this same sense of offense that leads David to his severe pain and grief when faced with the potential loss of his son. David’s grief and our own when faced with the reality of such untimely death is an appropriate acknowledgment of the reality and power of death in our human existence. It is an expression of our vulnerability and a recognition that we are not autonomous and in control. Even a life of piety and faith does not give us safe conduct around the necessity of facing death’s power. The death of a child brings us more unexpectedly and harshly into the presence of that power. In our own grief, in our care of others in their grief, we must allow for the acknowledgment and voicing of the pain that comes with death’s power. We must refuse to deny the reality of death’s power.

    But David’s response to the death of the child is an important word to us about the power of life, which does not take away the offense of death. It simply refuses to let death have the final word. Death invades and inflicts its pain, but life goes on. In grieving the death of a child, it is all too easy to let that child’s death become the most important thing about him or her. But even in a foreshortened life, the gift of that child’s life among us is more important than his or her death. If, like David, we dwell not on death but on life, then we align ourselves with the importance that the gift of a life be remembered and affirmed. That life need not be eclipsed by letting death have the final word. To go on with life is not heartless or stoic and does not require us to deny the pain of loss. It is to affirm that the power of life is stronger than the power of death, and if we live that as true for our own lives we can affirm it as true for our children who die before us.302

    For Christians, this understanding is at the heart of resurrection faith. Christ’s resurrection does not remove or nullify the offense of the cross. Resurrection is simply God’s refusal to let death have the final word. There is a further word of life that God speaks in the face of death and against the power of death (see Romans 6:1). David claimed the power of life at the very moment that death seemed to prevail. To read his story is to understand that we can do the same.

     

                                     <Page 1299 Ends><Page 1300 Begins>

  • Dan Francis
    Dan Francis Member Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭


    1 KINGS 3:1-15, SOLOMON'S PRIORITIES AND HIS GIFTS FROM GOD

    1 Kings 3:1-3, Solomon's Alliance with Egypt

    Link to: 

     

    <Page 36 ends>><Page 37 begins>>

     

    COMMENTARY

    This episode comes on the heels of Solomon's takeover from the now-deceased David. The new literary unit begins immediately with Solomon's marriage alliance with an unnamed king of Egypt, probably Pharaoh Siamun (c. 978–959 B.C.E.). It was a diplomatic deal sealed by Egypt's cession of the newly conquered city of Gezer to Solomon as a dowry, according to the historical notation of 9:16. Politically, the marriage signaled Solomon's rise to prominence in the international arena. He was leading his tiny new nation into the realm of world-class diplomacy, and the ruler of the powerful Egyptian Empire had to come to terms with him, even giving the Egyptian princess to him. That was a remarkable achievement since, according to one of the Amarna letters, the Egyptians did not like to make such concessions on their part: “From time immemorial no daughter of the king of Egy[pt] is given to anyone.”22

    In terms of the overall agenda of the narrator, however, this alliance surely foreshadows problems in which Solomon and his kingdom would soon become embroiled. The narrator hints at this by mentioning the Temple of the Lord that is still to be built and the fact that the people were sacrificing at the “high places” (local cultic installations) because the Temple had not yet been built.23 The narrative presents Solomon's marriage alliance with Egypt as the first of his acts after the kingdom was firmly established in his hand.

    The Egyptian princess is brought into the City of David. Solomon apparently could not wait to bring her in, for he had not yet built his own palace and certainly not the Temple, which would have made possible the centralization of worship in Jerusalem according to the stipulations in Deuteronomy (Deut 12:13-14). The defense of the city, too, had been put off. The implication is that the consequent syncretism had compromised the security of the nation, so much so that no walls could ever shield it from destruction in the end.

    The narrator no doubt intends the reader to come to the story with the Torah of Moses in mind. Thus the episode may be viewed against the backdrop of the deuteronomistic prohibition against marriages with foreigners, for such alliances would cause the people to turn away from following the Lord and, consequently, lead to destruction (Deut 7:3-4; Josh 23:11-13; 2 Kgs 8:18). It is probable, too, that one is to think of the warning in Deut 17:16, put in the mouth of Moses, that a king must not “cause the people to return to Egypt.” Indeed, Israel's return to Egypt is an inevitable outcome of Solomon's action, and the division of the kingdom would be a prelude to its complete disintegration (see 11:26-40).

    The Temple of the Lord in Jerusalem is said to be a temple (tyb bayit; lit., “a house”) built for “the name of the LORD” (v. 2). For the deuteronomist, the “name of the LORD” is a virtually independent entity that stands in place of the actual presence of the deity in the sanctuary (so NIV: “Name” rather than “name”). By recourse to the notion of the “Name” that represents God's presence, the theologian is able to associate the deity's presence with the sanctuary without ever implying that the deity is confined to that physical structure (see 8:27-30). The Temple is a place where God's name may be invoked, and so that presence may be brought about as and when God wills, but the Temple is not the house of God per se.

    Solomon “loved the LORD,” the editor tells us in characteristic deuteronomic language (Deut 6:5; 10:12; 30:16, 20), inasmuch as he was “walking in the statutes of David his father” (v. 3). Yet, that positive judgment seems to be tempered by the observation that he also offered sacrifices and burnt incense at the high places (v. 3b). Again, to the narrator, Solomon is setting a dangerous precedent. Indeed, by the end of the account of Solomon's reign, what is emphasized in the narrative is not his love of the Lord but his love of foreign women, the result of which was the syncretism that ultimately led to the destruction of the kingdom (see 11:1). (See Reflections at 3:4-15.)

     

    <Page 37 ends>><Page 38 begins>>

     

    1 Kings 3:4-15, God's Self-revelation and Gifts to Solomon

    Link to: 

     

    <Page 38 ends>><Page 39 begins>>

     

    COMMENTARY

    Solomon goes to sacrifice at Gibeon, a Benjaminite city, identified with the modern village of el-Jib, on a hill about seven miles northwest of Jerusalem. Gibeon is chosen because “that was the great high place” (NRSV, “that was the principal high place”; NIV, “that was the most important high place”), its reputation as a sacred location is corroborated by the chronicler, who portrays it as a place where “the tabernacle of the LORD” or “the tent of meeting of God” was (1 Chr 16:39; 21:29; 2 Chr 1:3, 6, 13). Yet, it is peculiar that Solomon should seek to worship at the high places or the particular one in Gibeon, for the ark, the very symbol of the Lord's presence, was in Jerusalem, as v. 15 confirms. He went to Gibeon to worship, even though the ark was already in Jerusalem! Solomon cannot be easily exonerated for having gone to that great high place.

    The account of Solomon's encounter of God at Gibeon has been compared with other dream accounts in the ancient Near East, especially that of Tuth-mose IV of Egypt (c. 1421–1413 B.C.E.), a dream in which the crown prince receives a divine promise of kingship.24 As in the report of Tuth-Mose IV and a number of other royal dream accounts, this episode in the book of 1 Kings provides divine legitimation for the ruler in question. Not only does the very appearance of the deity confirm Solomon's favored position in this case, but it is also implied in the narrative that he is king of all Israel, both because he is the scion of David, as southern (Judean) dynastic ideology dictates, and because he is divinely endowed with charisma, as northern (Israelite) notions of leadership would have it.

    Solomon's request is sometimes viewed as part of an ancient Near Eastern royal coronation ritual, where the king is given the privilege of a special petition to the deity (see the royal psalms, Pss 2:8; 20:4-6; 21:2). This is suggested by the litany-like reply of God (v. 11):

    “Because you asked for yourself this thing,

    but you did not ask for yourself longevity,

    you did not ask for yourself wealth,

    you did not ask for yourself the life of your enemies,

    but you ask for yourself discernment to hear what is just.”

    Moreover, the king's reference to his youth should be seen not as a chronological datum, a historically reliable indication of Solomon's actual age at the time of his accession. Rather, it is to be understood as a formulaic assertion of divine election, suggesting that Solomon is chosen despite overwhelming odds; although he is only a youth (cf. Jer 1:6) and incapable of leading his people (see Num 27:17; Deut 31:2; Josh 14:11; 1 Sam 18:13; 29:6; 2 Kgs 11:8). References to one's youth are quite common in ancient Near Eastern propaganda, where kings, especially those who come to the throne as usurpers, frequently call attention to divine election in and despite of their youth. So the original dream account may have been a part of a larger propagandistic work composed to legitimate the kingship of Solomon.

    Accepting this pro-Solomonic perspective, modern interpreters have observed that the king's request for wisdom to govern (fpv sApat; lit., “to judge”) his people (v. 9), rather than for the more selfish and worldly desires of longevity, riches, honor, and victory over enemies, indicates the depth of his character. Here is, as it were, a model of faith that seeks first the good of God's kingdom, the just and proper rule of God's chosen multitudes, rather than one's private interests, and because of that righteous attitude, Solomon is richly blessed (vv. 13-14; cf. Matt. 6:33; Rom 8:28-30). Yet, the elevation of wisdom over against other values is hardly unique in the Hebrew Bible. Indeed, in the wisdom tradition, longevity, honor, and material possessions are all seen as benefits that derive from wisdom (Prov 3:13-18). These things are given to anyone who acquires wisdom. So it only makes practical sense that one should seek wisdom first; all the other benefits will follow.

    The account of Solomon's experience at Gibeon makes clear, however, that his wisdom was not something that he acquired through his own efforts. Nor was it an innate quality he was born with. Rather, wisdom was given by God upon Solomon's proper response to God's invitation. All the other benefits, too, were not merely the derivatives of wisdom. They were, rather, also graciously given by God without 

     

     

    <Page 39 ends>><Page 40 begins>>

    Solomon's asking, the only condition being, according to the narrator, obedience to God's way (v. 14).

    Then Solomon awoke from the dream and returned to Jerusalem. Whereas he had been worshiping at the high places and had gone to Gibeon to worship, he returned in the end to Jerusalem, where the ark was (v. 15). And there, in addition to the burnt offerings that he offered at Gibeon and other high places, he offered !ymlv (sulAmîm; NRSV, “offerings of well-being”; NIV, “fellowship offerings”), probably referring to communal sacrifices accompanied by public feasting.

    REFLECTIONS

    Solomon's fame is legendary. Most modern readers know, as the ancient reader also did, that his reign was long and exceedingly prosperous and that he was well known for his wisdom. This account seems to confirm all that. Indeed, the original account may historically have served as political propaganda—an account to aggrandize Solomon.

    Whatever the original intention of the episode, however, the editor-narrator now sets forth his own explanation. Neither Solomon's legendary wisdom, which made him an effective ruler in the eyes of all the world, nor his other attainments of longevity, wealth, honor, and victory over his enemies, is due to his own righteousness. It is true that he loved the Lord, and it is true that he came before God with the proper attitude of humility. That is neither the beginning nor the end of the story, however. In fact, it was God who came to Solomon first, despite the fact that the king had endangered the integrity of the kingdom by bringing it into alliance with Egypt. Solomon, too, was slow to build the Temple and the defenses of the city, because he was more interested in his own marriage to the Egyptian princess and in building his own palace. He worshiped at the high places, which faithful reformers like Josiah later on had to eliminate. Yet, God came to him with an open invitation. God took the initiative, while Solomon was yet in sin and darkness, as it were.

    The passage as a whole seems to convey mixed messages about Solomon. It appears to vacillate between commendation and condemnation of him. On the one hand, Solomon seems to be favorably portrayed, as the builder of the Temple of the Lord in Jerusalem, as one who loves the Lord, who walks in “the statutes of David his father,” who has his priorities right inasmuch as he asks for wisdom rather than worldly attainments for himself. And this attitude is explicitly affirmed by God (3:10-14). On the other hand, the salutary character and actions of Solomon are colored by the unsavory effects of his decisions. He built the Temple to be sure, but not before he had brought a foreign wife into the City of David, in contravention of deuteronomic law. He planned to construct the Lord's house only after he had built his own, and, in the meantime, his people burned incense and offered sacrifices at the local cultic installations—something that the establishment of the Jerusalem Temple would have obviated. He loved the Lord, yet Solomon offered sacrifices and incense at the high places, again in violation of deuteronomic law. The pious Solomon, who is given wisdom by God to be a wise ruler, stands in stark contrast to the unscrupulous Solomon of the earlier chapters, who is supposed to be already “wise” enough to know how to deal with all who might threaten his place (see esp. 2:6, 9).

    Many commentators are inclined to see Solomon's approach to the Lord as something of a paradigm for faithful prayer. In his petition before God, he first acknowledges God's grace to him (3:6), recognizes that he is undeserving of God's special favor (3:7), and then asks for God's gift of wisdom so that he can carry out his duty as ruler of God's people, the chosen people (3:8-9). His thoughts are, it seems, noble; his primary desire is to seek the good of the kingdom. Accordingly, because of his appropriate attitude, God grants his wish for that gift, along with other benefits that he does not explicitly request. In other 

     

     

    <Page 40 ends>><Page 41 begins>>

    words, because he seeks first the kingdom of God, all these things are added unto him (see Matt 6:33).

    Solomon's attitude of humility before God is admirable, and there is, indeed, a practical lesson about faith and prayer that one may learn from this story. Yet, the most salient point of the passage is surely not that one should emulate Solomon. If it were so, the passage would be theologically banal. Those who view the story as exemplary are, in fact, forced to concede that the picture of Solomon here, contradictory as it is to other characterizations in other passages, represents only “the ideal Solomon . . . as he ought to have been, not necessarily as he was in historical reality.”25 Moreover, that interpretation would make sense only if one were to isolate the episode of Solomon's encounter at Gibeon from the opening subunit about the more selfish and thoughtless first acts of his reign (3:1-3). Whereas the words of his prayer may indicate that his priorities were right in that he put God and duty before self, there is hardly any way to exonerate him in his marriage with the Egyptian princess and in his putting the building of his own house ahead of the construction of the centralized Temple in Jerusalem and the defenses of the city. Finally, such a reading makes no sense in the light of the larger context of chapters 1–11, for the devastating effects of Solomon's selfishness for the kingdom as a whole are plainly laid out at the end.

    The lectionaries typically include only 3:5-15 (omitting even v. 4, which should properly be included on literary grounds), but not the preceding verses. Thus truncated, the text calls attention only to the self-revelation of God, the divine invitation, Solomon's admirable response, and the fact of God's gifts. Such a truncation, however, misses the theological tensions that the juxtaposition of these accounts poses: It is the very human, selfish, negligent Solomon who benefits from God's self-revelation and gifts. Solomon loved God only in a qualified way. Still, the deity appeared to him. Such is the nature of God in Scripture: God responds to the imperfect love (3:4), the sincere if inadequate response of mortals, with undeserved blessings, only to summon one yet again to love and to obey (3:14).

  • Dan Francis
    Dan Francis Member Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭


    2 Kings 20:1-11, Hezekiah's Illness and Recovery

    Link to: 

     

     

     

    <Page 269 ends>><Page 270 begins>>

     

    COMMENTARY

    The temporal introduction (“in those days”) vaguely links this passage with the preceding unit (chaps. 18–19)—namely, the time of Hezekiah and Sennacherib (v. 1). The narrator becomes more precise in v. 6, however, in placing the story at the time of Sennacherib's siege of Jerusalem—that is, in the fourteenth year of Hezekiah's reign, 701 B.C.E. (v. 6; cf. 18:13).

    When Hezekiah becomes critically ill, the prophet Isaiah comes to him with the word of the Lord, telling Hezekiah to give his last injunction (cf. 1 Kgs 2:1),147 for he will not recover (v. 2). Hezekiah does not accept that fate, however. He prays fervently for God to remember (cf. Ps 132:1) his wholehearted devotion and faithful conduct before the Lord (v. 3). Thereupon, Isaiah, who 

     

     

    <Page 270 ends>><Page 271 begins>>

    has scarcely left Hezekiah's presence (v. 4), is told to return to the king with the promise that God has heard his prayers and seen his tears, and thus will bring healing to the sick king so that he can go again to the Temple (v. 5). Hezekiah is given an extension of his life span: He will live fifteen more years (v. 6a). It is important to note here that reprieve and recovery for the king are linked to the same good fortune for Judah (v. 6b). The fate of the king and the fate of the city are bound together.148 God will deliver both the king and Judah from the hands of the Assyrian king for God's own sake, as well as for the sake of David. Read in its larger literary-theological context, the deliverance of Jerusalem can be understood as being partly God's specific response to Sennacherib's blasphemous challenge and partly the manifestation of God's grace extended to David. Thus Hezekiah's personal recovery is the working out of God's will in microcosm. Isaiah then makes a poultice of figs and applies it to Hezekiah's boils to heal them (v. 7).

    Hezekiah requests a sign as a confirmation of the promise of his recovery (v. 8). Unlike his father, Ahaz, who had refused to ask for a sign even when invited to do so by Isaiah (Isa 7:11-13), Hezekiah wants a sign from the Lord. Isaiah's response to the request comes not as a straight-forward announcement of the sign, but initially in the form of a question: “The shadow has advanced ten steps, will it return ten steps?” (vv. 8-9; cf. Num 20:10; Ezek 37:3). The “steps” here refer to the “steps of Ahaz” in v. 11, which the NRSV, following most interpreters, takes to be a sundial (“dial of Ahaz”), presumably a series of steps on which the movement of a shadow cast by the sun marked the hours of the day. Hezekiah replies that it is natural for the shadow to lengthen ten steps, but not for it to retreat ten steps (v. 10). When a shadow has been cast, it ordinarily will not recede. Isaiah then prays to God, and the shadow on the dial miraculously retreats after it has advanced (cf. the miracle of the sun's standing still in Josh 10:12-13). The miracle is dramatized in the recovery of Hezekiah. Isaiah had already proclaimed that Hezekiah is about to die (v. 1). Yet, when Hezekiah prayed to the Lord (v. 3), Isaiah was commanded to turn back (v. 5) and tell Hezekiah that fifteen years had been added to his life (v. 6). So, too, even though the shadow has already advanced ten degrees on the “steps of Ahaz” (i.e., time has passed), Isaiah prays to the Lord, and the Lord turns back the shadow (v. 11). Even if the word of death or destruction has been proclaimed, it is possible, through prayer, to turn back that word of judgment. (See Reflections at 20:12-21.)

    2 Kings 20:12-21, From Assyria to Babylon

    Link to: 

     

     

     

    <Page 271 ends>><Page 272 begins>>

     

    COMMENTARY

    This story is loosely connected to the present context by the temporal phrase “at that time” (v. 1). The Mesopotamian ruler with whom Hezekiah deals in this case is not the king of Assyria, as in chapters 17–18, however, but the king of Babylon, the power that within a century would defeat the Assyrians and invade Judah, capture Jerusalem, and send the Judeans into exile. According to the narrator, Babylonian emissaries had made overtures to Judah when Hezekiah was ill (v. 12), although nothing is said of the purpose for their having come to Jerusalem. The chronicler has them coming to learn about the sign that had been given to Hezekiah (2 Chr 32:31). Whatever the case, they are willingly received in Jerusalem and are shown all its resources (vv. 13, 15). When Isaiah learns what has transpired, he predicts that the day will come when the Babylonians will return to take all the wealth of the city and the king's descendants will be taken as captives to Babylon (vv. 16-18).

    The king's response is somewhat enigmatic.149 Taking the Hebrew text at face value, it appears that Hezekiah has two responses. The first is the public one that he states to Isaiah: “The word of the LORD that you have spoken is good” (v. 19a). That response is consonant with Hezekiah's image of a compliant, pious king who is ready to accept God's judgment. The other response, however, made known to the reader by the narrator, is Hezekiah's private response: “Why not, if there will be peace and security in my days?” (v. 19b). Apparently Hezekiah is willing to take the judgment, since it does not affect him directly. During his own reign, he seems to think, there will be peace and security. The publicly pious king is 

     

     

    <Page 272 ends>><Page 273 begins>>

    willing to accept the judgment of God, knowing full well that it does not affect him personally.

    With that shocking assessment of the private side of Hezekiah, the narrator simply moves on to give the standard closing summary of the king's reign, calling attention to his famous public project—namely, the provision of a water supply through the cutting of the Siloam tunnel.

    REFLECTIONS

    1. In both obvious and subtle ways, this lengthy report addresses the issue of trust, a term that appears numerous times in the text. It begins with a portrayal of a king who trusted God as no other king had done before him (18:1-8). That trust entailed bold and decisive compliance with the will of God, and it brought divine favor. In contrast, those who did not trust God did not survive (18:9-12).

    2. Despite the introductory verses of the story, the narrator seems to know that such talk of trust in God and its payoffs is difficult to work out in the “real world.” In the real world, even those who trust in God are confronted with political realities. For all his trust in God, Hezekiah had to suffer humiliation at the hands of a foreign invader, and he even had to strip the Temple of its wealth, removing gold from the doors and doorposts of the Lord's house in order to pay off the bully (18:13-16). Trust in God will not necessarily stave off actual political threats. Trust in God may not have immediate or manifest results.

    3. The text implicitly concedes that the rhetoric of trust in an invisible God is difficult to authenticate in the nitty-gritty of worldly affairs. People may speak of trust in God while they work on political solutions, their trust being in military alliances and the like (18:19-25). By the same token, talk of God's blessings is often difficult to corroborate. In the face of war's atrocities and the deprivations that people suffer, it is tempting to respond to the invitation of the most powerful ruler in the world to “make a blessing” with him and to go on an exodus with him from one's God-given place (18:30-32). It is tempting to believe his claim that it is he who would provide us with the necessities and luxuries of life. In view of the verifiable evidence of military might, and in view of the absence of any divine resistance to such demonstrations of power, it is tempting to believe that God cannot rescue us from such political and military power (18:33-35). In such circumstances, the people of God may, indeed, have no answer and ought not to try to give one (18:36). There is no answer in human disputation. In such circumstances, the only answer, if one is forthcoming, is a word from God—difficult though that word may be to verify (19:1-7). Thus this story asserts that prayer can make a difference.

    4. The silence of God may prompt arrogant individuals to believe that they are in a place to challenge God directly, to believe that they are in control of the destiny of the world. Such people miss the point, however, that even they may actually be instruments of God. Their power and their every plan may, indeed, be known to God and may be utilized in the working out of God's will in the world (9:8-34). When all is said and done, it is God who will have the last word. The text, therefore, invites the reader to believe that even in the face of the atrocious manifestation of military power—indeed, even evil, destructive power—nevertheless, the sovereign Creator of the world is in control.

    5. The story of Hezekiah's recovery from a deadly illness is something of a parable about the possibility of life even when death is all too certain. The Hebrew word translated as “recover” in the NRSV (20:1, 7) is also the word for “live.” Hezekiah was about to die, but his faith made the impossible possible (20:3-6). For the individual, as well as for the people of God as a larger community, there is hope in trusting God, even if no hope seems possible 

     

     

    <Page 273 ends>><Page 274 begins>>

    (20:6). Even if the shadow has been cast and it has lengthened ten times, God can reverse it (20:8-11). This is the kind of trust that the text challenges the reader to have. The grace of God through faith makes it possible for death to be overcome (Rom 3:21-31; 4:2-4; Gal 2:1-10). This is at the heart of the gospel story in the New Testament.

    6. Readers may prefer that the story of Hezekiah ended with his miraculous recovery by grace through faith, for that would make a wonderful theological denouement. That is not the final word, however. Hezekiah's trust in God does not seem so firm after all. He, who has been portrayed as a model of faith and piety, turns to the Babylonians, for reasons that the narrator does not bother to explain. When confronted with a prophetic word of judgment (a prediction of the eventual destruction of Jerusalem and the consequent exile), Hezekiah responds with appropriate humility in public, declaring the word of the Lord to be “good” (v. 19a). Publicly he is still the humble and obedient king. He accepted the word of the Lord. The narrator tells us, however, that his private thoughts may not have been entirely commendable. Hezekiah was more concerned, it seems, with his lame-duck reign than with the long-term consequences of his misplaced trust in the Babylonians. Interpreters from time immemorial have been uncomfortable with this negative portrayal of Hezekiah at the end of the mostly positive assessment of his reign. One must not try to exonerate Hezekiah for the sake of literary coherence, however. If anything, the presence of this story after the crescendo in 20:1-11 is a powerful reminder to the reader not to hold any human being, however attractive, however faithful, as a model. The Bible is not finally a story about faithful people but a story about a faithful God. The story of the lapse of pious Hezekiah is a lesson to us about post-recovery life: Despite one's experience of God's wondrous, life-renewing grace, there remains the possibility—indeed, the likelihood—that one may not fully trust God. As the apostle Paul warns us: “If you think you are standing, watch out that you do not fall” (1 Cor 10:12 NRSV).

  • Dan Francis
    Dan Francis Member Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭


    2 Chronicles 17:1-19, Finding God in Obedience and Blessing

    Link to: 

     

    <Page 545 ends>><Page 546 begins>>

     

    COMMENTARY

    The presentation of Jehoshaphat's reign in 1–2 Kings often involves relations with the northern kingdom (1 Kgs 15:24b; 22:1-50; 2 Kgs 3:4-27). Here he is considered in his own right as a Judahite king. This chapter functions as an introduction describing his rule. The following chapters either endorse the high assessment of Jehoshaphat or provide exceptions to the general tenor of his reign. Only at 17:1, 3 is there use of the 1 Kings narrative (1 Kgs 15:24; 22:43).

    17:1-5. The gist of the section is provided here in summary form. It is structured with a spiritual center (vv. 3b-4) and a framework of divinely authored success (vv. 1-3a, 5). Jehoshaphat's life was characterized by loyalty to God. The accolade of spirituality is bestowed on him: He “sought” the Lord. An even more glowing testimony will be given in 22:9: “He sought the LORD with all his heart.”

    The observation is clarified by a comparison and a contrast. Jehoshaphat lived up to the chronicler's ideal of appropriating his father's faith, keeping the spiritual flag flying in the next generation. The chronicler follows 1 Kgs 22:43 in comparing him with Asa. But his own representation of Asa required him to distinguish between Asa's “earlier” period of faith, described in chaps. 14–15, and his later period of decline in chap. 16 (NRSV, following the shorter reading of the LXX [cf. v. 4a]; the NIV retains the MT's “David” and then gives the unlikely rendering “in his [= Jehoshaphat's] early years”). Jehoshaphat is compared to his sinful northern contemporary Ahab in oblique terms. The chronicler presupposes knowledge of the final chapters of 1 Kings, where Ahab's devotion to Canaanite religion is narrated. By contrast, Jehoshaphat exemplifies devotion to the Torah. Such spirituality invited the Lord's presence in blessing, which is described in terms of military defense in vv. 1b-2. As in 11:5-12, the royal defense system was a mark of divine help, making Judah a strong nation. Blessing is further elaborated in v. 5, in terms of consolidation of his rule and riches and honor.

    17:6-9. Verses 1-5 offer a digest of the rest of the chapter, where its themes are amplified. Jehoshaphat's adherence to the religious purity of the Torah, and so to that of the Temple, is illustrated in v. 6b with loose reference to Deut 7:5; 12:2-3. As in 14:3, the chronicler is writing idealistically and so does not use 1 Kgs 22:43, which he will cite later in 20:33. The compliment in v. 6a refers literally to a high heart. Elsewhere it connotes pride (“He took pride in the service of the Lord” [REB]). It here refers to high ideals and serves as a headline for both v. 6b and vv. 7-9. The king's wider commitment to the Torah finds illustration in vv. 7-9. The dating in Jehoshaphat's third year may be simply a literary device for the close of a short period of time.258 An itinerant team of teachers is envisioned as 

     

     

    <Page 546 ends>><Page 547 begins>>

    having been commissioned by the king. Here and in the related 19:4-11 the chronicler appears to have drawn from a source describing Jehoshaphat's judicial reforms. In this case, the promulgation of the royal law code was doubtless in view, and the chronicler adapted it anachronistically into a concern for the Torah, or Pentateuch.259 In the light of 15:3, teaching and Torah went together—naturally so, since Torah relates to directions for life's journey, as was noted at 6:16, 27. A team of Levites and priests, backed by royal officials to lend authority to the enterprise, was dispatched throughout Judah on a teaching mission. There are post-exilic similarities with Ezra's commission from the Persian king in Ezra 7:6, 11-26 and with the expository task of the Levites in Neh 8:7-8. Here was a further example of Jehoshaphat's high ideals, instructing the people in divine revelation so that it might govern their lives. Such activity corresponds to Asa's concerns expressed in 14:4.

    17:10-12a. The blessing mentioned in v. 5b is amplified in vv. 10-11. The gift of Solomonic peace, enjoyed by Asa in 14:1, 6-7, is combined with fear typical of a holy war, such as foreigners had of Asa (14:14). Another of Solomon's blessings, tribute from other nations (9:14, 23-24), appears in v. 11, while the increasing prominence of the king echoes that of David in 1 Chr 11:9, where it is accompanied by the formula of divine presence. Here was a noble scion of the Davidic dynasty.

    17:12b-19. The theme of troops and fortified cities, broached in v. 2, is now expanded. Fortresses and military “supplies” were part of the defense system, which was manned by a standing army (vv. 13, 19b). As backup there was a large conscript army, whose commanding officers are listed in vv. 14-18. Along with the notice in 14:8, vv. 14-18 probably derive from a royal military census list that was available to the chronicler.260 Doubtless the word #la ()elep), here rendered in terms of thousands, referred there to much smaller units, though the chronicler has maximized them. In v. 14, the conscript army available in wartime seems to be equated with the standing army stationed in Jerusalem. The list was not adequately coordinated with its new context.

    REFLECTIONS

    1. The blessings of the divine presence enjoyed by a spiritually minded king are the topic of this chapter. In principle this theme corresponds to Paul's promise that the presence of the God of love and peace would attend in blessing those who pursued such virtues among their fellow Christians (2 Cor 13:11). A similar promise appears in Phil 4:9, that continuance in apostolic teaching and practice would secure the presence of the God of peace. We who want God to be with us in our lives are here given clues as to how to achieve such a blessing.

    2. The theme of 17:1-5 is seeking and finding. The narrative develops the spiritual principle enunciated by Azariah in 15:2, “The LORD is with you, while you are with him. If you seek him, he will be found by you” (NRSV). The chronicler encourages his own constituency to commit themselves to God. The king's success is traced back to his dedication to the Lord. Seeking God, he found evidence of God's goodness flooding his life. For the chronicler, a living faith and well-being went together, and exceptions only proved the rule. Jehoshaphat stands as a spiritual role model for the chronicler.

    3. The developments described in 17:6-19 are prefaced by a reference to Jehoshaphat's high ideals or spiritual ambitions. A strikingly similar reference occurs in the New Testament in the exhortation of Col 3:2, which literally may be rendered, “Think high things.” Ambition is a virtue when practiced within the guidelines of “the ways of the LORD.” The king's high aims were achieved in the twin areas of love of God and love of neighbor (17:6b, 7-9). The 

     

     

    <Page 547 ends>><Page 548 begins>>

    community was encouraged to take seriously the standards of the Torah for their lives. The chronicler's own communal ideal is transparent here.

    4. The muster list at the close of the chapter describes one of the officers as “a volunteer for the service of the LORD” (17:16 NRSV). He evidently volunteered and rose to a responsible rank, but interestingly his work is described in religious terms. A word with the same root occurs in a royal psalm at Ps 110:3, which speaks of the king's subjects as volunteers to serve him in his divinely authorized campaigns. Similarly, the New Testament urges Christian slaves as they serve their masters to “work willingly for the sake of the Lord” (Eph 6:7 NJB; cf. Col 3:23). Happy is the person whose job is his or her hobby, to paraphrase George Bernard Shaw. Even happier is the person whose daily work is dedicated to God and done to please the Lord.

  • Dan Francis
    Dan Francis Member Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭


    EZRA 1:1-11, IMPERIAL PERMISSION TO GO HOME

    Link to: "

     

     

     

    <Page 676 ends>><Page 677 begins>>

     

    COMMENTARY

    1:1-4. The return from the Babylonian exile took place primarily because of the intervention of divine and human agents: Yahweh “stirred up” (ry[h he(îr, in the hiphil) the spirit of Cyrus II, king of Persia, who issued a decree authorizing the Jews' return to Jerusalem and the rebuilding of the Temple. Whether or not the book of Ezra is a continuation of the books of Chronicles, it presupposes the story told there, including the burning of the Temple and the exiling of all those who had survived Babylon's sword (2 Chr 36:19-20). Twice previously, according to Chronicles, the Lord “had stirred up” the spirit of foreign kings or nations to carry out judgment against Israel (1 Chr 5:26; 2 Chr 21:16).

    Cyrus had come to power already in 559 B.C.E. and had rapidly extended his control from Anshan (Elam) to Persia, Media, Lydia, and Assyria. In October 539 B.C.E., he had conquered Babylon and assumed authority over the exiled Jews; this event, from the point of view of the author, inaugurated a new era, the “first year” of Cyrus (v. 1). By issuing a royal proclamation backed by a written copy, the king became part of a larger plan that fulfilled a prophetic word of Jeremiah. Although the books of Chronicles limit that promise to a seventy-year captivity (2 Chr 36:21; cf. Jer 25:11-12), the author of Ezra may also have thought of Yahweh's promise to bring Israel back to Jerusalem (Jer 29:10; 51:1, 11). Perhaps the author also saw here the fulfillment of the prophecies of Second Isaiah, who had hailed the Lord's commissioning of Cyrus and predicted that Cyrus would set the exiles free and rebuild Jerusalem and the Temple (Isa 41:2, 25; 44:28; 45:1, 13).

    The edict of Cyrus is also cited in Aramaic in 6:3-5, often taken to be a more authentic source, and it is paraphrased in 5:13-15. The proclamation recorded in chap. 1 is more suspect historically because it is written in Hebrew, refers to Yahweh by name, orders gifts for the Temple and its cult, and in general describes an exodus-like return 

     

     

    <Page 677 ends>><Page 678 begins>>

    from exile.11 After his conquest of Babylon, Cyrus did not use the title “King of Persia” (v. 2) for himself in any of his extant inscriptions. While commentators are divided on the authenticity of the document cited in vv. 2-4, they agree that at least in some details it was shaped by Jewish advisers in the Persian court or by the biblical author. The attribution of his worldwide rule to the Lord (v. 2) does not mean that the king had become a Yahwist, but only that he was accommodating himself to Jewish religious presuppositions. Similarly, in the famous Cyrus cylinder, Cyrus reported that Marduk, the god of Babylon, had chosen him and declared him to be ruler of all the world.12 The title “the God of Heaven” was attributed to Baal Hadad in pre-exilic times. After the exile it was occasionally used also by Jews with reference to their own God, especially when they were speaking to foreigners (Neh 1:4-5; Dan 2:37-44; Jonah 1:9). Because Yahweh was the God of heaven, Yahweh's actions had effects well beyond the geographical borders of Israel.

    In distinction to the version of the decree in 6:3-5, the proclamation in chap. 1 grants permission for the Jews to return to Jerusalem—a possible argument for its authenticity. Cyrus's wish that God would be with them, however, may echo Jerusalemite traditions (Ps 46:7, 11; Isa 7:14). To “go up” (hl[ (Alâ) to Jerusalem is multivalent; it could connote a pilgrimage, compare the return home to the exodus (in both cases the people “go up” [(Alâ] to the land; this usage is preserved in the modern term hyl[ [aliyah], used for Jews who emigrate to modern-day Israel), or it may indicate that in leaving Babylon one would follow the course of the Euphrates toward the north before descending to Israel.

    The term “survivors” (ravnh hannis)Ar, v. 4), with reference to the exiles, has the theological connotation of “remnant” (1 Chr 13:2; 2 Chr 30:6; 34:21; 36:20; Neh 1:2-3). These survivors were to be supported by their non-Jewish neighbors, much as the Israelites of the first exodus received aid from the Egyptians (Exod 3:21-22; 11:2; 12:35-36). Second Isaiah also drew a typological comparison between the first exodus and the return to the land as a second exodus, but he suggested that those leaving for home should not accept gifts from the Babylonians (Isa 52:11). In addition to financial aid and logistic supplies for the returnees, Cyrus included voluntary offerings for the Temple itself (see 1:4; 3:5; 2 Chr 31:14; 35:8).

    1:5-8. Verse 5 recognizes that not all the exiles did return, but only those “whose spirit God had stirred” (wjwr-ta !yhlah ry[h he(îr hA)ulohîm et-rûhô), a clause that echoes the Lord's stirring up of Cyrus in v. 1. The exact number of those who returned is unknown (see Commentary on 2:1-70), but it is likely that the majority of the exiles stayed in Babylon. Josephus noted that many did not want to exchange what they had acquired in exile for a more uncertain future in the land.13 The list of returnees in v. 5 begins with the “heads of families,” who are sometimes called “elders” in Ezra–Nehemiah. “Families” (twba tyb bêt )Abôt; lit., “fathers' [houses]”) were an important sociological subdivision within the tribal system, to which an individual would be related by genealogical descent. In pre-exilic times a “family” referred to a group composed of all living persons, except married women, who were descended from a person who was still living. During the restoration period, however, the term was used to refer to conglomerates of such households, more like the “clans” of pre-exilic times.14 The families in 2:3-19 averaged about 900 people apiece.

    The tribes of Judah and Benjamin (v. 5) comprised the primary population groups of the province called Yehud (2:20-35). Among the clergy who returned were the priests and the Levites. In the Pentateuch, the priests were descendants of Aaron (Num 3:10), to whom the Levites were assigned as helpers or clergy of a secondary rank (Num 3:5-9). Verse 6 presents an idealized picture that again echoes themes of the first exodus: Non-Jewish neighbors readily followed the invita-

     

     

    <Page 678 ends>><Page 679 begins>>

    tion of Cyrus by providing material aid and voluntary gifts for the Temple. The provision of animals (NIV, “livestock”) recalls the numerous livestock that accompanied Israel at the first exodus (Exod 12:38).

    Cyrus contributed to the return by restoring to the Jews the temple vessels that Nebuchadnezzar had taken from Jerusalem (v. 7; cf. 2 Chr 36:10, 18) and placed in the temple of his god (so NIV; NRSV, “gods”), Marduk. The restoration of the vessels is part of the king's decree in 6:5. These vessels provide real and symbolic continuity between the new Temple and the destroyed Temple (cf. 2 Chr 13:11). The return of the vessels may be compared with Cyrus's restoration of divine statues to their original temple cities in other countries. Israel's aniconic tradition meant that there were no statues of Yahweh that could be returned. Temple vessels are mentioned again during Ezra's return (7:19; 8:25-30, 33-34). “Mithredath,” the treasurer to whom Cyrus handed the vessels, is a typical Persian name meaning “the gift of [the god] Mithra.” The word “treasurer” is also a Persian rather than a Hebrew word. Jerome transliterated it freely as “Gabazar” in the Vulgate, and this eventually led to the creation of the name “Caspar” and its assignment to one of the magi (Matthew 2:1).

    Mithredath relayed the vessels to Sheshbazzar, the prince of Judah. Sheshbazzar, although a Jew, has a Babylonian name with the meaning “May Shamash protect the father [of this child].” Outside of this chapter Sheshbazzar is mentioned only in 5:14-16, where he is given the title of governor and is credited with laying the “foundations of the house of God.” Sheshbazzar is not to be identified with Shenazzar, one of the five sons of King Jehoiachin, listed in 1 Chr 3:18. Since he is called governor and since Nehemiah refers to a number of his predecessors as governors (Neh 5:15), it seems that the province of Judah may have been independent and may have had an officially designated Persian governor right from the start. Albrecht Alt, however, proposed that until the time of Nehemiah Jerusalem was under the governorship of Samaria.15 No one knows what happened to Sheshbazzar or when he was replaced by Zerubbabel. Some commentators conclude that the author of Ezra, like Josephus, identified these two governors as one person since he mentions Zerubbabel without introductory comment in 2:2. The term “prince” (aycn nAZî); v. 8) does not necessarily designate a descendant of the Davidic line, even though Ezekiel used the term to refer to the royal leader of the eschatological Israelite community in Ezekiel 40:1–48. “Prince” is used in Exod 22:28 (cf. Num 7:84) to refer to a leader of one of the tribes. The more general meaning of “leader” fits the context in Ezra 1:8.

    1:9-11. The inventory of temple vessels probably comes from a source available to the author. The varying translations in the NRSV (“basins,” “knives,” “other silver bowls”) and the NIV (“dishes,” “silver pans,” “matching silver bowls”) reflect scholarly uncertainty about the correct meaning of these words. The first of these words (ylfrga )agartulê, “basins”/“dishes”) has five consonants (an unusually long word in Hebrew) and may be a Persian loan word. The term “knives” (!ypljm mahalApîm) follows the translation provided by the Vulgate.16 Instead of “other silver bowls” the RSV reads “two thousand four hundred and ten bowls of silver,” based on 1 Esdr 2:13, but it is unclear how the word !ynvm (misnîm), now preserved in the HB, could be understood as 2,000. In any, case the total for all the vessels given in v. 11 (5,400) does not equal the total of the figures given in vv. 9-10 (2,499). The individual figures in the RSV differ from the MT (1,000, 1,000, 29, 30, 2,410, 1,000) and total 5,469 (see 1 Esdr 2:14), which is close to the number 5,400 given in Ezra 1:11. Only vessels of gold or silver are mentioned in v. 11; perhaps articles of bronze, such as the bronze sea (2 Kgs 25:14-17), had been melted down during the destruction or were not considered valuable enough to be included in this list.

    Verse 11 emphasizes that Sheshbazzar “brought up” (hl[h he(ulâ, in the hiphil) the vessels, but along with them were “brought up” (twl[h he(Alôt) the exiles from Babylon to Jerusalem. The term “exiles” (hlwg gôlâ; sometimes “children of the exile”) is used frequently in Ezra 

     

     

    <Page 679 ends>><Page 680 begins>>

    and Nehemiah as a designation for the post-exilic community. According to the chronicler, the land had been vacant during the exile (2 Chr 36:20-21).

    REFLECTIONS

    In many respects the restoration of the Jewish community in Palestine was a more or less insignificant event in one corner of the vast Persian Empire, which stretched from Greece toward the east, beyond modern Afghanistan. The account in this chapter ignores the contributions to the post-exilic community of those who had never gone into exile and who had maintained worship of the Lord in the meantime back home (Jer 41:5; Zech 7:5). Instead, the author saw in the return of the exiles the providential hand of the Lord, the same Lord who had been the power behind Israel's captors. In judgment and in grace, the author experienced the same God, who had been faithful in both of these actions.

    The restoration of the community was a sign that the prophetic word of God remained true and reliable. That word had also been important for the deuteronomistic historian (Deut 31:16-17, 20; Josh 21:45) and especially for Second Isaiah, who affirmed that the word or promise of God would stand forever (Isa 40:8). When church and government are as impermanent as the grass that withers and the flower that decays, there is sometimes no evident reason why faith should still be the best alternative and why God's promises should be trusted. But the author of Ezra–Nehemiah confessed that Yahweh had faithfully fulfilled the word spoken through Jeremiah and had enlisted the great Emperor Cyrus in the divine plan.

    God's actions and God's word lent legitimacy to the struggling and tiny community in Judah, whose uneven history is recounted in the following chapters of Ezra and Nehemiah. Despite all its warts and blemishes, despite failures by leadership and individual members, this little community, gathered around its Temple, was God's people. In going up to Jerusalem it had repeated symbolically the trip out of Egypt taken by its forebears. Unbelieving neighbors back at the time of the exodus and now at this return from exile recognized the legitimacy of the community through financial and material support. While continuity is established theologically by God's words and actions, human faith also needs tangible signs or cultural expressions to experience true continuity and a feeling of being at home. The temple vessels, so familiar and yet obscure enough to have the meaning of most of their technical terms forgotten, linked together the pre-exilic and the post-exilic communities.

    The imperial government permitted, even encouraged, the return home. Sometimes Cyrus has been hailed as a unique individual, a cultural breakthrough, whose generosity toward the captive Jews went beyond any expectations. As Amélie Kuhrt has shown, however, his policies of restoring people and cults were also in his own best interest and were designed to keep peace within the empire.17 All the restored gods were to “pray daily to Bel and Nabu for my [Cyrus's] length of days.” In a number of ways his imperial policies continued those of the Assyrians, who have a well-deserved, almost universally negative public reputation. Still, without Persian state support—humanly speaking—the restoration would never have happened. There were dangers in the cooperation between the Persians and the Judeans, of course, as there always are in the interplay of church and state. The priestly community was willing to go along with the status quo and to live dependently within the Persian Empire. Perhaps that was a wise course; perhaps it was the only feasible course. But one wonders what had happened to belief in the old promises of the land or the promises to David. Acceptance of the political status quo can also be a sign of little faith.

    Those who returned were affected by public displays of divine initiative and political 

     

     

    <Page 680 ends>><Page 681 begins>>

    permission, but they were also people whose inner spirit God had stirred up. Some of their colleagues stayed behind in Babylon to retain their acquired status, perhaps because they had lost the vision. Some—how large a number we do not know—said yes to the invitation to go home. In this combination of divine empowerment and human decision among those who returned is reflected the paradox that Paul expressed so memorably: “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, enabling you both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Phil 2:12b-13 NRSV). Our claim to being saved by grace alone carries with it the correlary assumption that God's grace empowers us actively to do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly with God (Mic 6:8).

    Sheshbazzar, the leader of this returning group, was no Moses. Whether appointed by the king or elected by the people, he had achieved leadership and responsibility. He was “prince” and “governor”; he was the person responsible for receiving the temple vessels and carrying them home, and his tasks included initial work on the Temple. But Sheshbazzar never makes a speech in the Bible, apparently delivered no law or performed any miracle. We do not even know how his career ended. And yet, without him, would the community in Judah have ever restarted at all? Such nondescript leadership is often significant for the people of God today. Each week Christians gather in congregations across the land, without fanfare or public notice, and then go forth into ministry in daily life to turn the other cheek, to care for the lonely and the marginalized, to forgive as they have been forgiven, to love their enemies. A stanza in a hymn by Daniel March points out the significance of such Sheshbazzars (cf. Exod 17:11-13):

    If you cannot be a watchman,

    Standing high on Zion's wall,

    Pointing out the path to heaven,

    Off'ring life and peace to all,

    With your prayers and with your bounties

    You can do what God demands;

    You can be like faithful Aaron,

    Holding up the prophet's hands.

  • Dan Francis
    Dan Francis Member Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭


    NEHEMIAH 9:1-37, A GREAT DAY OF REPENTANCE

    Nehemiah 9:1-5a, Preparations for Confession

    Link to: 

    COMMENTARY

    After a one-day interval following the solemn assembly (8:18), the Israelites gathered for another liturgical ceremony on the twenty-fourth day of the seventh month. This day of fasting and confession is not part of the regular Jewish calendar, although periodic fasts during exilic and early post-exilic times are mentioned elsewhere (Zech 7:5; 8:19). The text reflects a mood appropriate to the Day of Atonement, unmentioned in Ezra–Nehemiah, which falls on the tenth day of the seventh month (see Lev 23:26-32). The alternative locations for this chapter proposed by Clines and Williamson would put this ceremony on the twenty-fourth day of the ninth month of Ezra's first year; Rudolph's suggested arrangement of the text would date the ceremony to the twenty-fourth day of the first month in Ezra's second year.177 In the present context, the date was set at a time when the eight-day Festival of Tabernacles (8:18) would have been completed.

    Fasting, wearing sackcloth (see 1 Chr 21:16; Dan 9:3; Jonah 3:5), and placing dirt or ashes on one's forehead (Josh 7:6; 1 Sam 4:12; 2 Sam 1:2; Esth 4:1; Job 2:12) are regular parts of mourning rites in the Old Testament and may suggest that the worshipers felt themselves to be under a sentence of death. The “seed of Israel” (v. 2; “those of Israelite descent,” NRSV and NIV; cf. Ezra 9:2), who had separated themselves from all foreigners and not just from foreign women as in 

     

     

    <Page 805 ends>><Page 806 begins>>

    Ezra 10:1, corporately confessed their own sins (see vv. 33-37) and the sins of their forebears (see vv. 16-30). The whole ceremony lasted six hours, or about as long as the reading of the law in 8:3, and this festival of penance was divided into equal sections of reading from the book of the law and confessing sins before Yahweh (v. 3). The antecedent of “they” in v. 3 would seem to be those of Israelite descent, but it could also refer to the Levites in the following verses. Five of the eight names in the two lists of Levites in vv. 4-5 are identical (though not in the same order). Did one of these groups of Levites perform public displays of grief while the other group put the community's thoughts into words? Or was there originally only one group of Levites, with the second group arising because of the conflation of variant readings? The first group stood on the “stairs of the Levites” (v. 4; so correctly NRSV against NIV); these stairs served the same function as did the raised wooden platform in 8:4. In distinction to chap. 8, these Levites do not teach the people; rather, they serve as leaders of song and prayer, as often in the books of Chronicles (1 Chr 16:8-36; 2 Chr 8:14). The second group of Levites ordered the assembly to stand and bless Yahweh (cf. Ps 106:1). (See Reflections at 9:5b-37.)

    Nehemiah 9:5b-37, The Great Prayer of Repentance

    Link to: 

    <Page 806 ends>><Page 807 begins>><Page 807 ends>><Page 808 begins>><Page 808 ends>><Page 809 begins>>

     

     

    COMMENTARY

    Neither the NRSV nor the NIV understands the prayer as poetry, though Rudolph and Gunneweg do, and it is printed as poetry in BHS.178 The prayer displays rhythm and meter only sporadically and may be considered a kind of poetic prose, with a series of Hebrew puns in vv. 20, 24, and 27. The prayer begins with a call to praise in v. 5b (cf. Psalm 106:1) and ends with a final paragraph consisting of petition (v. 32), confession of sins (vv. 33-35), and complaint (vv. 36-37). In between comes a historical retrospect (vv. 6-31). The prayer praises Yahweh for righteousness of judgment on Israel and functions in part as a “doxology of judgment,” much like the hymn whose stanzas have been distributed throughout the book of Amos (Amos 4:13; 5:8-9; 9:5-6). Its closest formal parallel in the Bible is Psalm 106:1 (see also the so-called historical Psalms 78; 105; 135; 136). The recital of Israel's past sin climaxes with the great distress in which the people now find themselves. Blenkinsopp finds similarities between Nehemiah 9:1 and the Words of the Heavenly Luminaries from Qumran, Baruch 1:15–3:8, and the Prayer of Manasseh (this text, however, is individual rather than communal).179 The prayer is composed almost entirely of citations of or allusions to other biblical texts. The writer seems to have known the Pentateuch in its entirety.180

    9:5b-31, Historical Retrospect. The outline of this section offers important clues to the overall meaning of the chapter. First, the prayer recites God's providential care in creation (v. 6), the election of Abraham (vv. 7-8), and the exodus from Egypt (vv. 9-11). During this time there was no hint of human infidelity. Verses 12-21 then discuss the complex divine-human relationships during Israel's wilderness wanderings: God's 

     

     

    <Page 809 ends>><Page 810 begins>>

    providential care (vv. 12-15); the rebellions of the ancestors in the wilderness (vv. 16-18); and God's continued guidance in spite of their rebellion (vv. 19-21). Finally, vv. 22-31 review the life of the ancestors in the land. After the dramatically successful conquest (vv. 22-25), the people became disobedient and were punished, they prayed, and they received divine deliverance throughout the period of the judges (vv. 26-28). The last verses of the historical retrospect report sin and punishment during the monarchical period and bring the account down to the (implied) time of the poem's origin during the exile.181 Despite the present captivity, God's mercy and righteousness endure (vv. 29-31).

    According to this prayer, the period of the judges, just as in the book of Judges itself, consisted of a series of cycles in which sin and punishment were followed by petition and deliverance. The period of the kings in vv. 29-31, just as in the books of Kings, consisted of a truncated cycle: repeated sins that eventually led to the loss of land. At the end of the books of Kings the reader may be tempted to ask: “If we were to cry out, would there not be deliverance for us?” In other words, an implied cycle of petition and deliverance is also there. In Nehemiah 9:1, too, after the historical retrospect come a petition (v. 32), a confession of sins (vv. 33-35), and a complaint about their present condition that functions as a kind of appeal for God to act based on pity for them (vv. 36-37). In short, the prayer asks for the cycle of deliverance to resume.

    9:5b, Hymnic Introduction. Because this verse addresses God in the second person without an appropriate introduction, and because the preceding phrase, “from everlasting to everlasting,” is awkward both in Hebrew and in the literal translation of the NRSV, it seems advisable to add a clause after “your God” to solve both difficulties: “Blessed are you, O LORD, our God” (the NIV glosses over the problem by inserting the words “who is”). This original reading, which forms the first line of the prayer, was later lost by haplography, the omission of one or two identical or similar letters, groups of letters, or words found together.

    9:6, Creation. The praise of the Creator should begin with the following translation: “You, O LORD, are the only God.” The translations in the NRSV and the NIV suggest instead that there is only one Yahweh, which is not likely to have been a major point of dispute when this poem was composed. The Hebrew cosmos presupposed in this verse was tri-partite: heaven, earth, and sea (Pss 69:34; 96:11; cf. Rev 21:1, the new creation, in which there will be no sea). God's creative action produced this cosmos, and God created and preserves all living beings—in the heavens, on the land, and in the sea. The “host of heaven” connotes either the stars or the members of God's heavenly council (cf. Pss 103:21; 148:2). The worship performed by the host of heaven stands in sharp contrast to the disobedience of Israel.

    9:7-8, The Election of Abraham. Abraham is selected by the author to represent the traditions of Israel's ancestors in Genesis 12:1–50. The prayer applies the word “chose” (rjb bAhar) to Abraham, based no doubt on the terminology of Deut 4:37; 10:15, although his election is described with other words in Genesis. The verb “brought out” (axy yAzA)), used of God's guidance of Abraham from his southern Mesopotamian home in Ur of the Chaldees (cf. Gen 11:28, 31; 15:7), suggests a kind of deliverance, or exodus, also for him (see Exod 20:2; 32:11-12). The reference to the gift of the name “Abraham” recalls Genesis 17:1, where God changed Abram's name to Abraham and Sarai's to Sarah to mark their new covenantal status. Abraham was faithful (cf. the “righteousness” of Abram in Gen 15:6), and God made with him a covenant—the only covenant mentioned in this prayer—whose primary content was the promise of the land (see Gen 15:18-21; 17:7-8). The list of pre-Israelite inhabitants of the land in v. 8 resembles the other nine biblical lists (Gen 15:19-20; Exod 3:8, 17; 33:2; 34:11; Deut 7:1; 20:17; Judg 3:5; Ezra 9:1), but is not identical to any of them (see the Commentary on Ezra 9:1-5). Just as foreigners ruled Israel at the time of the writer, so also a multitude of foreigners had occupied the land in the ancestral period. Nevertheless, in spite of their presence, the promise to give the land to Abra-

     

     

    <Page 810 ends>><Page 811 begins>>

    ham's descendants had been fulfilled—God kept the promise, and this fulfillment demonstrated God's righteousness, or faithfulness, to the relationship with Abraham (see Gen 15:6).182 In the Hebrew text, v. 6 begins and v. 8 ends with the pronoun “you,” referring to God, as does the whole historical retrospect in v. 31.

    9:9-11, Exodus. The survey of the exodus event reports that God saw the affliction of the people's ancestors—no doubt much like their own affliction—and heard their cry. Perhaps the author is suggesting that God will soon hear the plea of the Levites, who had just cried out with a loud voice (v. 4). Through the plagues God brought judgment on Pharaoh's officials and all his people. God's reputation or name, earned through the event of the exodus and the crossing of the Sea of Reeds (v. 10), endured to the time when this prayer was offered. According to two of the pentateuchal source documents, the divine name Yahweh had been revealed to Moses in the course of the events leading to the exodus (Exod 3:13-15 [E]; 6:2 [P]). The Egyptians had acted arrogantly in the time of oppression (v. 16); the prayer gives no hint of Israelite disobedience in Egypt (cf. Ezek 20:8).

    9:12-21, Wilderness Wanderings. In vv. 12-15 four providential acts of God are mentioned: the pillar of cloud and the pillar of fire (Exod 13:21); the giving of the law on Sinai (Exodus 19:1–24); manna from heaven for the hungry and water from the rock for the thirsty (Exod 16:4; 17:6; Num 20:8); and the command to enter and possess the promised land, based on a divine oath. Only observance of the sabbath is mentioned as a specific ethical requirement, a typical exilic and post-exilic concern (10:31; 13:15-22; Isa 56:2, 4, 6), also highlighted in the survey of Israel's history in Ezekiel 20:12-13, 16, 20-21, 24.

    The confession of sins begins in v. 16 with the mention of the presumptuous acts of the ancestors (the NRSV errs in distinguishing “they” from “our ancestors in this verse”). The sins of the ancestors are compared to those of their erstwhile Egyptian oppressors in that “acted presumptuously” (v. 16, referring to the ancestors) and “acted insolently”(v. 10, referring to Pharaoh and his servants) translate the same Hebrew verb (dyz zîd). The ancestors even stubbornly desired to return to slavery in Egypt (v. 17).183 Their behavior contrasts markedly with the character of Yahweh: a God ready to forgive, one who is gracious and merciful (v. 17), a theme that recurs at the end of the historical retrospect in v. 31. God's patience—slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love—continued even during the making of the golden calf (v. 18; cf. Exodus 32:1) and the committing of great blasphemies.

    God did not abandon them (vv. 17, 19), but in fact inaugurated a second era of providential guidance in the wilderness (vv. 19-21), which repeats the themes of vv. 12-15: the pillar of cloud and the pillar of fire, the gift of God's good Spirit to instruct them (functionally the same as the giving of the law in vv. 13-14), and the provision of manna and water.

    9:22-31, Life in the Land. The fourth providential act (v. 15), the command to enter the land, is developed extensively in vv. 22-25, the first part of the section dealing with life in the land. The conquest began with victories over Sihon and Og in Transjordan (Num 21:21-35; Deut 1:4; 2:16–3:11). Both the conquest and Israel's subsequent population explosion were fulfillments of promises to the ancestors (Gen 15:5; 22:17; 26:4; Deut 1:10-11). The victory over the Canaanites was solely God's doing; Joshua is not even mentioned. Only the descendants of the exodus generation were able to enter the land. The prayer does not seem to expect or call for any armed appropriation of the land in the future. The people's delight in the abundance of the land is matched by a recognition that all this stems from God's goodness. Even the words “became fat” (v. 25) denote unbroken prosperity without any of the negative connotations of Deut 32:15. Indeed, the obedience of the ancestors continued until the end of the period of the conquest (see Judg 2:7).

    Verses 26-31 offer a cyclical picture of Israel's subsequent history of disobedience, and they depict a constantly downward spiral. The offenses were egregious, but the charges are not specific: 

     

     

    <Page 811 ends>><Page 812 begins>>

    rejection of the law, killing of the prophets, and doing great blasphemies. There is actually little historical evidence for violence against the prophets in the Bible (2 Chr 24:20-22; Jer 26:20-23),184 and this charge may have grown as a rhetorical heightening of the people's rejection of the prophetic word. Two times the prayer recounts a complete cycle of sin, punishment, petition for help, and deliverance, roughly corresponding to the period of the judges (vv. 26-28); the third cycle (vv. 29-31) has not yet advanced to the people's cry (but see v. 32). God's manifold mercies had led to the raising of saviors (v. 27; cf. Judg 2:16, 18) and the sending of prophets to bring the people to repentance (v. 29; cf. v. 26 and 1 Kgs 18:4, 13; 2 Kgs 17:13). Punishment in each cycle consisted of being turned over to the power of foreign peoples (vv. 27, 28, 30).

    Verse 29 returns to the idea of presumptuous behavior, but now in the monarchical period (cf. vv. 10, 16). The accusations against the people are still rather colorless—disobedience of the commandments, stubbornness, failure to listen to the admonitions of the prophets. They rejected the very commandments that would give them life (Lev 18:5; Deut 30:15-20; Ezek 20:11). Despite God's patience and the sending of the Spirit through the prophets to warn them (2 Chr 36:15-16), the people had refused to listen. But even the present punishment by the peoples of the lands did not mean a complete end, as Jeremiah had promised (Jer 5:18; 30:11), nor did it bring abandonment (v. 31; despite v. 28). God remained a gracious and merciful God until the very hour of this prayer.

    9:32, Petition. The transition point between historical retrospect and petition is marked by a transitional “now” (v. 32). God is addressed, even by those under judgment, as “our God,” as in the first (reconstructed) line of the poem (v. 5). God is great, mighty, and awesome, but God is also, paradoxically, the one who keeps covenant and steadfast love, a reference to the covenantal promise of the land to Abraham in v. 8. The petition is forceful in its understatement: “Do not treat lightly all the hardship that has come upon us.” The term “hardship” (halt tulA)â) is used elsewhere to refer to Israel's troubles in Egypt (Exod 18:8; Num 20:14). That trouble has now struck people both high and low—kings, officials, priests, prophets, and the immediate ancestors of those who offer the prayer. It has lasted from the Assyrian domination until the present time (cf. vv. 10, 36).

    9:33-37, Confession of Sin and Complaint. Verse 33 has led to the classification of this prayer as a doxology of judgment: “God, you have been righteous in what you have done.” God has acted truthfully, the poet says, but “we” have acted wickedly. We are as guilty as our ancestors. The “we” of this confession includes various segments of society, significantly omitting the prophets from any blame (v. 34; cf. v. 32). Despite God's kingship and great goodness, manifested in the marvelous gift of the land, the speakers admit that they have not served God and so they now have become slaves (vv. 35-36). The very land God gave to the ancestors has become the place of servitude until “this very day.” The writer complains that the rich yield of this land now goes—presumably through taxation and tribute—to the kings who were imposed on them as punishment. This view of the imperial power seems much harsher and much less nuanced and cautious than the usual attitude toward the Persians reflected in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah: “They have power over our bodies and over our livestock at their pleasure” (v. 37). This critical attitude toward the Persians makes Gunneweg's proposal about the later origin of this chapter quite attractive (see the Overview to 7:73b–10:39).185

    The speakers of this prayer clearly include themselves among the guilty: These punishments have come on us because of our sins (v. 37); we are in great distress. The pronoun “we” forms the last word of the prayer in Hebrew, just as “you” (referring to God) began and ended the historical retrospect (vv. 6-31). Between those two words, and between those two characters, God and people, the hopes of those who prayed stand in the balance.

     

     

    <Page 612 ends>><Page 613 begins>>

     

    REFLECTIONS

    The truth for one generation is only partly the truth for the next. All of us struggle with how to express the faith of our heritage in the language of our children. The person responsible for having written this chapter did not contest that those who returned from Babylon in the days of Ezra were faithful, nor did he doubt that the joy of the Festival of Tabernacles had drowned out their sorrow. But he wanted to add some qualifications for his own time, when faithfulness to God required separation from all foreigners and the temptations they offered. For his time, acceptance before God required coming to terms with a history of failure. Reading the law needed to be followed by confession of sins and worship of God (9:3).

    But his account of Israel's history with God was not just a catalog of misery. The host of heaven worshiped the Creator right at the beginning and thereby set a pattern now echoed by the levitical leaders in the world of the text (9:3). Abraham—should we not add Sarah, too?—had a heart that was faithful to God. The central truth about God is faithfulness to the people; this makes God a promise maker and a promise keeper.

    God's mercy is repeated in each generation and many times in one's own life. God's mercy is boundless and, paradoxically, has its limits. One should not expect sin and punishment, prayer to God, and deliverance to go on forever without any change in oneself. Grace is free but not cheap. But even when the cycles of deliverance came to an end in this poem, God did not make a full end, nor did God abandon the people. How many times should a person forgive sister or brother? How many times will God forgive us? Even when the cycles of deliverance come to an end, we dare to pray for the wheel of history to turn toward deliverance one more time.

    What is the character of God? God is a covenant maker and therefore promises whatever God's people need for wholeness of life, here expressed as the gift of the land. God is also a covenant keeper. For many people God's awesomeness is manifested in the reversals of life and the mysteries of judgment. And yet we boldly confess in a well-known collect, “God, your almighty power is shown chiefly in showing mercy.” The One to whom we pray for forgiveness is great, mighty, and awesome and, at the same time, the One who keeps covenant and steadfast love (9:32). Are not the latter virtues the surest signs of God's almighty power?

    God guides us and protects us night and day, before, during, and after our sin (9:12, 19). God gives us good and just laws that sometimes can be summarized in one imperative. In the time when Nehemiah 9:1 was composed, observance of the sabbath day showed whether one acknowledged God. What would be a comprehensive and concrete imperative for our day? Acceptance of the stranger? Respect for the environment? Peace? Justice?

    God's good Spirit comes to offer us instruction and encouragement (9:20a). This good Spirit appears today in our congregational leaders and fellow members, our friends and our relatives, and in all those who love us enough to tell us the truth of the faith. Hunger and thirst according to this prayer were satisfied before, during, and, most important, after sinning (9:15a, 20b-21). Even after sinning, Israel, like the psalmist, lacked nothing (9:21; cf. Ps 23:1). In addition to daily bread in the wilderness, then, God provided clothes that never wore out and ankles that never swelled. Divine beneficence after sinning was more lavish than before.

    Before Israel's history of sin began, the command to possess the land required half a verse (9:15b). After the “ancestors acted presumptuously and stiffened their necks,” that promise expanded to four verses (9:22-25)! The earthiness of God's goodness comes to full expression through fertile land, wells already dug, trees in abundance, well-nourished people, reveling in God's goodness. God continually tried to give the people the one thing they now lacked: possession of the land. Salvation must always meet our needs, or it is not salvation for us.

    The history of sinning is not just a history of a fallen world somewhere out there or a roll call of notorious sinners. It is not that our parents erred and we are paying the consequences. 

     

     

    <Page 813 ends>><Page 814 begins>>

    No, according to chap. 9, the history of sinning is our history; we did wrong—despite God's faithful actions. The leaders and representatives did not serve God, and therefore, with punishment to fit the crime, the people are now servants, real slaves. Some people can tolerate foreign domination and make a virtue of it, as did the principal authors of Ezra and Nehemiah. But finally, at least for some within Israel, including the author of this chapter—and for many surely today—such slavery could not be tolerated. The alien, yet God-given, kings ruled the bodies and the cattle of those who prayed in chap. 9 mostly in accord with what was pleasing to these rulers (9:37).

    What moves God to act? Is it our praise, God's character, God's promises? “You are the LORD, you alone” is the way the poem begins in 9:6.

    But the poem ends with “we”—we the slaves, we the exploited, we who are in great distress (9:36-37). Is not God moved by pity for us?

    You, God, are one-half of the issue. We are the other half. You and us—in that connection lies our only hope.