Shape Divider - Style fan_opacity
LENT
Beginning on Ash Wednesday and ending the Saturday before Palm Sunday, Lent is a season of reflection and preparation before the celebrations of Easter. The appointed Old Testament lessons and Psalms lay out the narrative of the creation and fall, outlining humanity's need for a savior as well as God's promise of a coming Messiah through the prophecies. In the Epistle and Gospel lessons, we follow Christ's ministry and journey to the cross, ultimately recognizing that he is the fulfillment of God’s promise.
Holy Week
First Sunday in Lent
Old Testament
Gen 2:4-9, 15-17, 25-3:7
Genesis opens with two very different accounts of creation. For the modern reader, this raises questions. We expect a text like Genesis to adhere to our contemporary paradigms for what counts as a historical record. We like names, dates, and places. And we expect that both accounts of creation would line up in their details.
However, in the ancient world stories like this were not primarily viewed as historical documents but accounts about that nation’s or religion’s origins. They explained how the world was structured. What was the relationship between God, man, and creation?
In this way, chapter one of Genesis is telling us one thing about the order and structure of creation and chapter shifts to a micro-focus on God and humanity’s structured relationship. In particular Genesis chapter 1 that God is totally other, he created everything and is not dependent on creation. Not only is God the creator but he structured it as well, ordering light from dark, land from the waters, etc. And finally, from a biblical perspective, man is the concluding mark to creation.
In verse 4 of chapter 2, the author turns from the macro view of creation to a micro view that focuses on the creation of Adam.
2:4
This verse opens with a narrative break from the account given in 1:1-2:3. “This is the account of…” (NET) The Hebrew phrase אֵ֣לֶּה תוֹלְד֧וֹת (ʾelle toleédot) can be translated as the NET Bible does. Or it can convey the idea of “these are the generations of…” The Greek translation of Genesis 2:4 reads along the lines of “this is the book of the creation (genesis) of …” (Αὕτη ἡ βίβλος γενέσεως…). This is a stylistic device used throughout the book of Genesis to single that we are about to enter a new story or give the genealogy of one of the patriarchs (see: Gen. 5:1, 6:9, 11:27, 25:12, and 37:2). It is used to let the reader know that the story is now going to shift. The author is not going to focus on the creation of the world. Instead, the story is going to shift now and trace the trajectory of mankind and creation.
The subject matter of this “account” is described in a beautiful line of Hebrew poetry. This is even apparent in most English translations:
These are the generations …
of the heavens
and the earth
when they were created,
in the day that the LORD God made
the earth
and the heavens (ESV)
You have a repetition of heaven and earth with the order reversed in the second stanza. This all revolves around two verbs that summarize Genesis chapter 1, “they were created” and “God made.”
2:5
This verse opens with two negative clauses: “no shrub of the field…”, and “no cultivated plants.” These two clauses are followed by two additional clauses that explain them. There were no shrubs because God had not caused it to rain. There were cultivated plants because there was no man to cultivate the soil. The final clause, “there was no man to cultivate the ground” foreshadows the tragedy of this story. Because of Adam and Eve’s disobedience, their relationship to the ground will be broken (3:17-19) and they will be cast out of the garden (Gen 3:23).
2:6
The Hebrew text contains a clever wordplay. The word for “ground; fertile soil” is אֲדָמָֽה (}adamah). It is from that soil that the man, אָדָם (}adam) will be made.
The fertility of the Eden is seen in 2:6 &7. Water would well up from the earth and water all the surface of the fertile soil, אֲדָמָֽה (}adamah). It is from this fertile soil that Adam would be made.
2:7
In verse 7 God fashions or forms man (אָדָם, }adam) from the ground (אֲדָמָֽה, }adamah) “To form” or “to fashion,” is used in relation to someone who is making or designing something. In Jeremiah 18:2-4 the same verb is used to talk about a potter ‘forming’ a pot.
This was a common concept found in other religious traditions in the ancient Near East. Egyptian engravings depict one of their gods making little human figurines on a potter’s wheel. These figurines were passed to another deity who gave them life. In Babylonian creation stories, mankind was fashioned from clay, and like the biblical account, mankind returned to clay when they died.
The account of human life begins in this verse with God breathing into Adam’s nostrils. Biblically, life begins with the first breath (see Ezekiel’s vision of the dry bones Ez. 37:1-10) and ends when that person breathes their last (the expire, Luke 23:46). It is a metonymy. To ‘breathe’ is part of what it means to be alive, a distinct aspect to it.
In both the Old and New Testaments the words (רוּחַ, ruaḥ in Hebrew and πνεῦμα, pneuma in Greek) are used to refer to wind, breath, and spirit (both human and divine).
At first glance, the description of the creation of man here is quite different from that of chapter 1. Man was made “from the ground” rather than “in the image of God” as in chapter 1. The contribution that chapter 2 makes to the creation of mankind is that even though we are made in God’s image we are still one of God’s creations. We are made from the soil.
2:8
The description of the “garden” in chapter two receives a great deal of space in the narrative. “Garden” refers to an enclosed garden, probably often an orchard. The word Eden means a “plain” in Hebrew.
However, when the Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek (the LXX) the word used for “garden” is para¿deisoß (paradisos) where we get “paradise” in English. It evokes a location or garden of idyllic delight and rest. This then sets up a trajectory of interpretation regarding the garden of Eden with an image of God’s paradise on Earth. Revelation 2:7 represents the full development of that line of thought that arose from how the Hebrew phrase here was translated into Greek.
It is interesting to note that the “garden” is planted ‘in’ Eden, it is not Eden.
All too often, these two ideas are conflated together. Eden was the region where the garden was located.
2:9
The garden is primarily described in terms of the trees within it. The picture being painted is that this is a fertile, enclosed orchard with a diversity of fruit trees within it. “Pleasing to look at…and good for food” foreshadows the temptation in chapter 3.
The phrase “knowledge of good and evil” has been debated almost since the time Genesis was written. It can refer to wisdom, the ability to discern between good and evil, or moral capacity.
For a thorough discussion of this verse and all the different ways it has been interpreted see: Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15 in Word Biblical Commentary (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1987) 1:62–64.
2:15
In 2:8 we were told that God ‘put’ man in the garden and this is repeated here.
“Care and maintain it” literally, “to work/serve it and to preserve/protect it.” Adam’s task was to care for and maintain the garden. This sets up a contrast with the consequences of the fall when Adam is condemned to cultivate the soil which will only yield its produce with great suffering on Adam’s part (3:17-18).
2:16
Verse 16 is incredibly significant within the larger biblical narrative. This is the very first ‘command’ (Heb. צָוָה, tsavah, “to command”) in the Bible. It sets up the entire trajectory of Genesis-Deuteronomy. Man’s responsibility is to respond in a faithful manner to keep God’s commands.
2:17
“In the day that you eat of it you will surely die” sets up the serpent’s temptation of Eve, “You will not surely die.” (3:4) The fact that Adam and Eve do not physically die when they eat from this tree forces the reader to question what exactly did God mean by this warning. On the one hand, “death” implies separation from God. On the other hand, if this is a reference to physical death then “you will surely die” is speaking about human mortality.
2:25
The idea of “naked,” is introduced here and will play a more central role in the fall of man in the next chapter. In chapter 2, “nakedness” implies innocence and a lack of shame. This is emphasized in the next clause “they were not ashamed.” After Adam and Eve eat from the tree their nakedness will take on the connotations of shame, guilt, and vulnerability.
3:1
Serpents got a bad rap in the ancient world. Most of the different cultures depicted evil beings as serpents. A serpent robbed Gilgamesh of his immorality by eating a special plant Gilgamesh had retrieved from the depths of the ocean. For a good article that summarizes how ‘serpents’ are portrayed and used within the Bible see: “Serpent” in Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, eds. Leland Ryken, James C. Wilhoit, and Tremper Longman III(Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1998).
In Genesis 3, a shrewd serpent approached Eve and asked, “Is it really true God said …” He begins his temptation with a question. “Did God really say…”
This is an interesting point in the narrative. In 2:16-17 God gave this command to Adam before Eve was created. So how she learn about this? It highlights a gap in the narrative. While we are not told if she knew this command it requires that we fill in some details in the story. Perhaps Adam relayed this command to her. How accurately did he tell her?
3:4-5
“Surely you will not die” — why? Because, according to the serpent, God knows that you will now possess divine understanding. This alludes back to God’s command to Adam in 2:17. The serpent is using the ambiguity in how that command is phrased in 2:17 as a way to raise questions in Eve’s mind. It raises questions about the benevolence of God. Is God holding something back from you Eve?
3:6
Eve’s temptation culminates in a rapid description of her temptation. She sees that the fruit of this tree was good. This fruit was attractive or desirable. That this fruit not only looked good but it could make one wise. She took some of the fruit. And she ate.
The verb “ate” goes back to God’s command in chapter 2. It signals the climax of Eve’s temptation and the turn toward Adam’s fall. It is also at the heart of God’s questioning of Adam and Eve, “Did you eat from the tree?”
Immediately after Eve violates God’s command she gave some to Adam. The Hebrew places these two verbs adjacent to each other, “she ate and she gave…”
Eve was deceived in her interaction with the serpent. Adam, on the other hand, is portrayed as just eating the fruit. The authors of the New Testament interpret this story in a manner that placed the blame for the fall of mankind on Adam. Eve was deceived but Adam sinned.
3:7
There is an element of humor in this verse. Once they eat the fruit their eyes are opened. This is the first time that they seem to realize that they are naked. “Sheesh Adam, put something on!” They are naked but no longer unashamed. They then make some sort of covering out of fig leaves. Not only is this a rather poor attempt to remedy their nakedness but it betrays just how ignorant and helpless they were at this point in time. They didn’t even know how to clothe themselves and were about to be cast out of God’s garden into a fallen world.
Old Testament
Gen 2:4-9, 15-17, 25-3:7
Genesis opens with two very different accounts of creation. For the modern reader, this raises questions. We expect a text like Genesis to adhere to our contemporary paradigms for what counts as a historical record. We like names, dates, and places. And we expect that both accounts of creation would line up in their details.
However, in the ancient world stories like this were not primarily viewed as historical documents but accounts about that nation’s or religion’s origins. They explained how the world was structured. What was the relationship between God, man, and creation?
In this way, chapter one of Genesis is telling us one thing about the order and structure of creation and chapter shifts to a micro-focus on God and humanity’s structured relationship. In particular Genesis chapter 1 that God is totally other, he created everything and is not dependent on creation. Not only is God the creator but he structured it as well, ordering light from dark, land from the waters, etc. And finally, from a biblical perspective, man is the concluding mark to creation.
In verse 4 of chapter 2, the author turns from the macro view of creation to a micro view that focuses on the creation of Adam.
2:4
This verse opens with a narrative break from the account given in 1:1-2:3. “This is the account of…” (NET) The Hebrew phrase אֵ֣לֶּה תוֹלְד֧וֹת (ʾelle toleédot) can be translated as the NET Bible does. Or it can convey the idea of “these are the generations of…” The Greek translation of Genesis 2:4 reads along the lines of “this is the book of the creation (genesis) of …” (Αὕτη ἡ βίβλος γενέσεως…). This is a stylistic device used throughout the book of Genesis to single that we are about to enter a new story or give the genealogy of one of the patriarchs (see: Gen. 5:1, 6:9, 11:27, 25:12, and 37:2). It is used to let the reader know that the story is now going to shift. The author is not going to focus on the creation of the world. Instead, the story is going to shift now and trace the trajectory of mankind and creation.
The subject matter of this “account” is described in a beautiful line of Hebrew poetry. This is even apparent in most English translations:
These are the generations …
of the heavens
and the earth
when they were created,
in the day that the LORD God made
the earth
and the heavens (ESV)
You have a repetition of heaven and earth with the order reversed in the second stanza. This all revolves around two verbs that summarize Genesis chapter 1, “they were created” and “God made.”
2:5
This verse opens with two negative clauses: “no shrub of the field…”, and “no cultivated plants.” These two clauses are followed by two additional clauses that explain them. There were no shrubs because God had not caused it to rain. There were cultivated plants because there was no man to cultivate the soil. The final clause, “there was no man to cultivate the ground” foreshadows the tragedy of this story. Because of Adam and Eve’s disobedience, their relationship to the ground will be broken (3:17-19) and they will be cast out of the garden (Gen 3:23).
2:6
The Hebrew text contains a clever wordplay. The word for “ground; fertile soil” is אֲדָמָֽה (}adamah). It is from that soil that the man, אָדָם (}adam) will be made.
The fertility of the Eden is seen in 2:6 &7. Water would well up from the earth and water all the surface of the fertile soil, אֲדָמָֽה (}adamah). It is from this fertile soil that Adam would be made.
2:7
In verse 7 God fashions or forms man (אָדָם, }adam) from the ground (אֲדָמָֽה, }adamah) “To form” or “to fashion,” is used in relation to someone who is making or designing something. In Jeremiah 18:2-4 the same verb is used to talk about a potter ‘forming’ a pot.
This was a common concept found in other religious traditions in the ancient Near East. Egyptian engravings depict one of their gods making little human figurines on a potter’s wheel. These figurines were passed to another deity who gave them life. In Babylonian creation stories, mankind was fashioned from clay, and like the biblical account, mankind returned to clay when they died.
The account of human life begins in this verse with God breathing into Adam’s nostrils. Biblically, life begins with the first breath (see Ezekiel’s vision of the dry bones Ez. 37:1-10) and ends when that person breathes their last (the expire, Luke 23:46). It is a metonymy. To ‘breathe’ is part of what it means to be alive, a distinct aspect to it.
In both the Old and New Testaments the words (רוּחַ, ruaḥ in Hebrew and πνεῦμα, pneuma in Greek) are used to refer to wind, breath, and spirit (both human and divine).
At first glance, the description of the creation of man here is quite different from that of chapter 1. Man was made “from the ground” rather than “in the image of God” as in chapter 1. The contribution that chapter 2 makes to the creation of mankind is that even though we are made in God’s image we are still one of God’s creations. We are made from the soil.
2:8
The description of the “garden” in chapter two receives a great deal of space in the narrative. “Garden” refers to an enclosed garden, probably often an orchard. The word Eden means a “plain” in Hebrew.
However, when the Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek (the LXX) the word used for “garden” is para¿deisoß (paradisos) where we get “paradise” in English. It evokes a location or garden of idyllic delight and rest. This then sets up a trajectory of interpretation regarding the garden of Eden with an image of God’s paradise on Earth. Revelation 2:7 represents the full development of that line of thought that arose from how the Hebrew phrase here was translated into Greek.
It is interesting to note that the “garden” is planted ‘in’ Eden, it is not Eden.
All too often, these two ideas are conflated together. Eden was the region where the garden was located.
2:9
The garden is primarily described in terms of the trees within it. The picture being painted is that this is a fertile, enclosed orchard with a diversity of fruit trees within it. “Pleasing to look at…and good for food” foreshadows the temptation in chapter 3.
The phrase “knowledge of good and evil” has been debated almost since the time Genesis was written. It can refer to wisdom, the ability to discern between good and evil, or moral capacity.
For a thorough discussion of this verse and all the different ways it has been interpreted see: Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15 in Word Biblical Commentary (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1987) 1:62–64.
2:15
In 2:8 we were told that God ‘put’ man in the garden and this is repeated here.
“Care and maintain it” literally, “to work/serve it and to preserve/protect it.” Adam’s task was to care for and maintain the garden. This sets up a contrast with the consequences of the fall when Adam is condemned to cultivate the soil which will only yield its produce with great suffering on Adam’s part (3:17-18).
2:16
Verse 16 is incredibly significant within the larger biblical narrative. This is the very first ‘command’ (Heb. צָוָה, tsavah, “to command”) in the Bible. It sets up the entire trajectory of Genesis-Deuteronomy. Man’s responsibility is to respond in a faithful manner to keep God’s commands.
2:17
“In the day that you eat of it you will surely die” sets up the serpent’s temptation of Eve, “You will not surely die.” (3:4) The fact that Adam and Eve do not physically die when they eat from this tree forces the reader to question what exactly did God mean by this warning. On the one hand, “death” implies separation from God. On the other hand, if this is a reference to physical death then “you will surely die” is speaking about human mortality.
2:25
The idea of “naked,” is introduced here and will play a more central role in the fall of man in the next chapter. In chapter 2, “nakedness” implies innocence and a lack of shame. This is emphasized in the next clause “they were not ashamed.” After Adam and Eve eat from the tree their nakedness will take on the connotations of shame, guilt, and vulnerability.
3:1
Serpents got a bad rap in the ancient world. Most of the different cultures depicted evil beings as serpents. A serpent robbed Gilgamesh of his immorality by eating a special plant Gilgamesh had retrieved from the depths of the ocean. For a good article that summarizes how ‘serpents’ are portrayed and used within the Bible see: “Serpent” in Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, eds. Leland Ryken, James C. Wilhoit, and Tremper Longman III(Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1998).
In Genesis 3, a shrewd serpent approached Eve and asked, “Is it really true God said …” He begins his temptation with a question. “Did God really say…”
This is an interesting point in the narrative. In 2:16-17 God gave this command to Adam before Eve was created. So how she learn about this? It highlights a gap in the narrative. While we are not told if she knew this command it requires that we fill in some details in the story. Perhaps Adam relayed this command to her. How accurately did he tell her?
3:4-5
“Surely you will not die” — why? Because, according to the serpent, God knows that you will now possess divine understanding. This alludes back to God’s command to Adam in 2:17. The serpent is using the ambiguity in how that command is phrased in 2:17 as a way to raise questions in Eve’s mind. It raises questions about the benevolence of God. Is God holding something back from you Eve?
3:6
Eve’s temptation culminates in a rapid description of her temptation. She sees that the fruit of this tree was good. This fruit was attractive or desirable. That this fruit not only looked good but it could make one wise. She took some of the fruit. And she ate.
The verb “ate” goes back to God’s command in chapter 2. It signals the climax of Eve’s temptation and the turn toward Adam’s fall. It is also at the heart of God’s questioning of Adam and Eve, “Did you eat from the tree?”
Immediately after Eve violates God’s command she gave some to Adam. The Hebrew places these two verbs adjacent to each other, “she ate and she gave…”
Eve was deceived in her interaction with the serpent. Adam, on the other hand, is portrayed as just eating the fruit. The authors of the New Testament interpret this story in a manner that placed the blame for the fall of mankind on Adam. Eve was deceived but Adam sinned.
3:7
There is an element of humor in this verse. Once they eat the fruit their eyes are opened. This is the first time that they seem to realize that they are naked. “Sheesh Adam, put something on!” They are naked but no longer unashamed. They then make some sort of covering out of fig leaves. Not only is this a rather poor attempt to remedy their nakedness but it betrays just how ignorant and helpless they were at this point in time. They didn’t even know how to clothe themselves and were about to be cast out of God’s garden into a fallen world.
First Sunday in Lent
Psalm 51:1-13
This psalm opens with a superscription that gives the context for this psalm.
The prophet Nathan has confronted David for raping Bathsheba and killing her husband. It is in the context of these horrendous sins that the psalmist now offers a prayer of confession.
51:1
Instead of commenting on the various words or ideas contained in this Psalm what I would like to do this week is examine the structure of this Psalm. The goal is not to overwhelm you with arcane details about Hebrew poetry. Instead, there are two reasons why the reflections on this psalm are taking this approach. First, psalms like this one were carefully and beautifully laid out. They were not quickly jotted down in a moment of inspiration but were carefully crafted and worked out. A great deal of thought and time went into composing this psalm. Second, the meaning of a text is often conveyed in ‘how’ it is composed not just in ‘what’ it contains.
The first 12 verses are structured according to synonymous parallelism. In this form of parallelism, the content in the second line is of equal weight to the first line. Usually, the two lines contain similar ideas as well. Verse one is a great example of this:
51:1 a b
i Have mercy on me, O God, according to your steadfast love;
b’ a’
ii according to your abundant mercy blot out my transgressions.
The idea of “have mercy on me” (a in 51:1i is repeated as a’ at the end of line 51:1ii. This not only creates a beautiful poetical balance between the two lines. But it also serves to emphasize the idea through repetition. The first 12 verses will all structured in the same parallel form of structure. Finally, in verse 13 the psalm will shift to synthetic parallelism.
a b
2 i Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity,
a’ b’
ii and cleanse me from my sin.
a b
3 i For I know my transgressions,
b’ a’
ii and my sin is ever before me.
a b
4 i Against you, you alone, have I sinned,
b’ a’
ii and done what is evil in your sight,
a b
iii so that you are justified in your sentence
a’ b’
iv and blameless when you pass judgment.
a b
5 i Indeed, I was born guilty,
b’ a’
ii a sinner when my mother conceived me.
a b c
6 i You desire truth in the inward being;
a’ b’ c’
ii therefore teach me wisdom in my secret heart.
a b c
7 i Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean;
a’ c’
ii wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.
a b
8 i Let me hear joy and gladness;
a’ b’
ii let the bones that you have crushed rejoice.
a b
9 i Hide your face from my sins,
a’ b’
ii and blot out all my iniquities.
a b c d
10 i Create in me a clean heart, O God,
a’ c’ b’
ii and put a new and right spirit within me.
a b
11 i Do not cast me away from your presence,
a’ b’
ii and do not take your holy spirit from me.
a b
12 i Restore to me the joy of your salvation,
a’ b’
ii and sustain in me a willing spirit.
The synonymous parallelism in the first 12 verses is broken and now a synthetic parallel structure emerges. The second line develops or adds to the thought in the first line in synthetic parallelism.
a b c
13 i Then I will teach transgressors your ways,
b’ d e
ii and sinners will return to you.
Notice how the idea of ‘teaching’ in line 13i is dropped in 13ii. The concept of ‘will return’ in the second line is a new thought. The change in the poetical structure indicates the result or goal of the first line.
The change in the poetical structure (from synonymous parallelism to synthetic parallelism in verse 13 forward) should signal the reader that not only is there a shift in poetic style but also in thought. The Psalmist is moving from a prayer of confession and forgiveness to a petition for God’s help to fulfill their royal responsibilities.
It is also worth noting that some lectionary reading stops at verse 13. By ending the reading at this point in the Psalm it makes it read like a pietistic type of devotional text. A psalm of confession that lines up with some of the New Testament views on confession.
However, if we continue reading the entire Psalm we would see that this Psalm is historically particularized in ancient Israel. The references to burnt offerings, doing good in Zion, building the walls of Jerusalem, and bull offerings on the altar give the Psalm a historical context. Psalm 51 was a psalm written by a king who committed heinous crimes. It is a Psalm of confession and the goal of that confession comes in the last few verses. The king needs his relationship with God to be restored so that he can once again lead the nation in the way that God desired.
Not only is this Psalm theologically rich but its power and persistence are grounded in the beauty of its structure. As a result, believers have found this Psalm a rich reservoir to drink during times of spiritual renewal.
Psalm 51:1-13
This psalm opens with a superscription that gives the context for this psalm.
The prophet Nathan has confronted David for raping Bathsheba and killing her husband. It is in the context of these horrendous sins that the psalmist now offers a prayer of confession.
51:1
Instead of commenting on the various words or ideas contained in this Psalm what I would like to do this week is examine the structure of this Psalm. The goal is not to overwhelm you with arcane details about Hebrew poetry. Instead, there are two reasons why the reflections on this psalm are taking this approach. First, psalms like this one were carefully and beautifully laid out. They were not quickly jotted down in a moment of inspiration but were carefully crafted and worked out. A great deal of thought and time went into composing this psalm. Second, the meaning of a text is often conveyed in ‘how’ it is composed not just in ‘what’ it contains.
The first 12 verses are structured according to synonymous parallelism. In this form of parallelism, the content in the second line is of equal weight to the first line. Usually, the two lines contain similar ideas as well. Verse one is a great example of this:
51:1 a b
i Have mercy on me, O God, according to your steadfast love;
b’ a’
ii according to your abundant mercy blot out my transgressions.
The idea of “have mercy on me” (a in 51:1i is repeated as a’ at the end of line 51:1ii. This not only creates a beautiful poetical balance between the two lines. But it also serves to emphasize the idea through repetition. The first 12 verses will all structured in the same parallel form of structure. Finally, in verse 13 the psalm will shift to synthetic parallelism.
a b
2 i Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity,
a’ b’
ii and cleanse me from my sin.
a b
3 i For I know my transgressions,
b’ a’
ii and my sin is ever before me.
a b
4 i Against you, you alone, have I sinned,
b’ a’
ii and done what is evil in your sight,
a b
iii so that you are justified in your sentence
a’ b’
iv and blameless when you pass judgment.
a b
5 i Indeed, I was born guilty,
b’ a’
ii a sinner when my mother conceived me.
a b c
6 i You desire truth in the inward being;
a’ b’ c’
ii therefore teach me wisdom in my secret heart.
a b c
7 i Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean;
a’ c’
ii wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.
a b
8 i Let me hear joy and gladness;
a’ b’
ii let the bones that you have crushed rejoice.
a b
9 i Hide your face from my sins,
a’ b’
ii and blot out all my iniquities.
a b c d
10 i Create in me a clean heart, O God,
a’ c’ b’
ii and put a new and right spirit within me.
a b
11 i Do not cast me away from your presence,
a’ b’
ii and do not take your holy spirit from me.
a b
12 i Restore to me the joy of your salvation,
a’ b’
ii and sustain in me a willing spirit.
The synonymous parallelism in the first 12 verses is broken and now a synthetic parallel structure emerges. The second line develops or adds to the thought in the first line in synthetic parallelism.
a b c
13 i Then I will teach transgressors your ways,
b’ d e
ii and sinners will return to you.
Notice how the idea of ‘teaching’ in line 13i is dropped in 13ii. The concept of ‘will return’ in the second line is a new thought. The change in the poetical structure indicates the result or goal of the first line.
The change in the poetical structure (from synonymous parallelism to synthetic parallelism in verse 13 forward) should signal the reader that not only is there a shift in poetic style but also in thought. The Psalmist is moving from a prayer of confession and forgiveness to a petition for God’s help to fulfill their royal responsibilities.
It is also worth noting that some lectionary reading stops at verse 13. By ending the reading at this point in the Psalm it makes it read like a pietistic type of devotional text. A psalm of confession that lines up with some of the New Testament views on confession.
However, if we continue reading the entire Psalm we would see that this Psalm is historically particularized in ancient Israel. The references to burnt offerings, doing good in Zion, building the walls of Jerusalem, and bull offerings on the altar give the Psalm a historical context. Psalm 51 was a psalm written by a king who committed heinous crimes. It is a Psalm of confession and the goal of that confession comes in the last few verses. The king needs his relationship with God to be restored so that he can once again lead the nation in the way that God desired.
Not only is this Psalm theologically rich but its power and persistence are grounded in the beauty of its structure. As a result, believers have found this Psalm a rich reservoir to drink during times of spiritual renewal.
First Sunday in Lent
Epistle
Romans 5:12-19
In the letter to the Romans, Paul intertwines the stories of three people to convey his theological message. Abraham is used as a model for faith. Adam comes out rather poorly as he is portrayed as the fool who brought the curse upon humanity. And Jesus is the obedient son who has redeemed humanity and given us a model to follow. This Sunday’s epistle reading centers on Paul's interpretation of Adam’s transgression in the Garden of Eden (see the reading from Genesis 2-3 for comments on that passage). It is interesting to note that all except for Luke 3:38 and Jude 14 every reference to Adam in the New Testament comes from Paul's hand. And Adam never comes out looking good in Paul's work.
It is also interesting to note the minor role Adam plays in the Hebrew Bible. After Genesis chapter 5, Adam is only mentioned three times. So why is he so central in Paul's argument? During the period between the writing of the Old Testament and the New Testament, various Jewish teachers speculated on how Adam's sin resulted in humanity's fall (see: 4 Ezra 3:21 and 2 Baruch 18:1-2). Their view of Adam's transgression and its consequences are in many ways similar to Paul's. In this way, Paul's theology reflects similar trajectories to Rabbinic thought from his day.
In this reading from Romans 5, Paul compares the impact of Adam and Jesus’ lives. Sin and death are the theological threads that Paul weaves through his account of the lives of these two individuals.
5:12
This verse opens with Paul stating that through one man's sin death entered the world. In the discussion of Genesis 2-3 (see the comments of the Old Testament reading for this week), we mentioned how creation stories in the ancient world were used to convey various ideas about the structure of the world in which we live. For Paul, Adam's story in Genesis 2-3 provides the theological structure for understanding the nature of human existence. Adam's story explains how suffering and mortality spread to all mankind.
"Because all sinned"
The grammar behind this clause is difficult to translate and has raised exegetical questions throughout the history of the church. Did death spread throughout humanity because everyone sins? Or could it be that Paul thought that everyone was “in” Adam (either physically or Adam represented everyone) and thus participated in Adam's sin?
Note: For a full discussion of the exegetical difficulties of this verse see: C.E.B. Cranfield's article "On Some of the Problems in the Interpretation of Romans 5:12" Scottish Journal of Theology 22 (1969) 324-41.
5:13-14
"Before the law was given"
“Before the law" refers to the time before God revealed his law through Moses. This is clarified in verse 14 where Paul states that "death reigned from Adam until Moses." The fact that everyone who lived after Adam and before Moses died is evidence that sin was rampant in the world.
In Genesis 2:17, Adam was warned that in the day he ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil that he would die. However, he did not physically die when he ate from the tree. Yet Paul reads this “death” as physical death. He does so by compressing the time frame. Because Adam disobeyed God he was caste out of the garden. Years later he died physically. Paul compresses the time between Adam’s transgression and his physical death in his reading of Genesis 3.
"Who is a type of the coming one."
How could Adam be a type of Christ? They seem like polar opposites to each other in Paul’s thought. The Greek word for "type" (τύπος, tupos) carries a range of meanings. From “a mark,” “a pattern,” or “a model” (for something else). In this passage, Adam is a "type" of Christ because of the impact his life had on humanity. While their lives had the opposite effects it is the idea that the lives of both men impacted all of humanity is key to Paul’s argument in this passage. Adam’s life brought death, Jesus’ brought life. One brought sin, the other redemption. One judgment, the other justification. So while they are the antithesis to each other, Paul uses these contrasts to show how Adam was a type of Christ.
Comparison and contrast arguments, like this one, were a common element in ancient Greco-Roman rhetoric. While the contemporary reader may find Paul’s use of Adam as a type of Christ odd, it would have been a solid rhetorical argument to the ancient reader.
5:15-17
Adam might be a type of Christ but Jesus is not limited by this typological relationship. Through Christ we have "much more.” The impact of Jesus’s life far exceeds that of Adam’s. This can be seen in Paul’s use of "grace" and "gift" in this passage. These words stand in stark contrast to Adam's "transgression."
Rom 5:15-17 (ESV) "But the free gift (charisma) is not like the trespass (paraptōma). For if many died through one man's trespass (paraptōma), much more have the grace (charis) of God and the free gift (charisma) by the grace (charis) of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. And the free gift (dōrea) is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass (trespass is implied in the text here) brought condemnation, but the free gift (charisma) following many trespasses (paraptōma) brought justification. For if, because of one man's trespass (paraptōma), death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace (charis) and the free gift (dōrea) of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.”
5:18-19
"Therefore" signals the conclusion to Paul’s comparison between Adam and Jesus. The Greek behind the English translation of "therefore" is very strong. Most English translations use only one word for this construction. In the Greek, Paul employed two words to emphasize the point he was making. Literally, it would read "Therefore, therefore…" or perhaps "Therefore consequently …"
Verses 18 and 19 are also carefully laid out in parallel constructions to each other. By doing so, Paul summarizes and vividly contrasts the impact of Adam and Jesus’ lives. We need to remember that Paul’s letters were meant to be read out load to the congregations. When verses 18 and 19 are read out loud the punch and rhetorical flourish of Paul’s argument at this point are dramatically felt. (The two verses are laid out (see below) parallel to each other so you can see how carefully Paul's line of reasoning is constructed.)
5: 18 ”Therefore consequently …"
just as condemnation for all people came through one transgression,
so too through the one righteous act came righteousness leading to life for all people.
5:19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man many were made sinners,
so also through the obedience of one man many will be made righteous.
5:18-19
"The many”
This is a phrase that has been used by various interpreters to argue that this passage supports the idea of universal salvation. The broad language that Paul used here is not so much an argument for universal salvation but an example of hyperbolic language being used for the sake of his contrast between Jesus and Adam.
In the following verses, Paul will transition to a new point in his letter to the Romans. In that passage he will address the question of how the Mosaic Law impacts sin and salvation.
First Sunday in Lent
Gospel
Matthew 4:1-11
Historically, the church has read the story of Jesus’ temptation on Invocavit Sunday (the first Sunday of Lent). Jesus’ forty days of fasting is seen as an example for believers to follow as well during this season.
Immediately after Jesus is baptized (Matt 3:13-17) he was “led by the Holy Spirit into the wilderness.” The two stories are hooked together and Jesus’ baptism sets the stage for how we should understand the temptations. These two stories also contain a several significant theological themes.
4:1 The wilderness
Sometimes the biblical authors provide us with on the barest of details. Matthew only tells us that the setting for Jesus’ temptations was in the wilderness. This is most likely the Judean Desert. A stretch of rugged, barren land that lies between the Judean highlands (where Jerusalem is) and the Dead Sea. It is about 75 miles long (north to south) and 10 miles wide. It is an extremely rugged terrain with cliffs and is very rocky. Food and water are only along the periphery of this region or a few springs located near the Dead Sea.
4:2 Jesus “fasted forty days and forty nights”
The number forty activates intertextual connections between Jesus and Moses. Moses spent 40 days and nights on Mount Sinai (Exodus 24;18; 34:38-40) and fasted during this time. One of the main themes that run throughout Matthew’s gospel is a comparison between Jesus’ ministry and teachings and those of Moses. It is not that Moses was bad, rather Matthew argues that Jesus is much greater.
The Three Temptations
Matthew and Luke both record Jesus’ temptations. Mark only has the introduction (Jesus being driven into the wilderness by the Spirit) and the conclusion (the angels came and ministered to him. Matthew and Luke fill out Mark’s account and provide us with the details of the three temptations. What is significant is that while they record the same three temptations they change the order of the second and third temptations.
Gospel
Matthew 4:1-11
Historically, the church has read the story of Jesus’ temptation on Invocavit Sunday (the first Sunday of Lent). Jesus’ forty days of fasting is seen as an example for believers to follow as well during this season.
Immediately after Jesus is baptized (Matt 3:13-17) he was “led by the Holy Spirit into the wilderness.” The two stories are hooked together and Jesus’ baptism sets the stage for how we should understand the temptations. These two stories also contain a several significant theological themes.
- All four of the gospels include the story of Jesus’ baptism as an introduction to his public ministry. While his baptism is not a “call” to ministry, this story functions as the start of his ministry in all four gospels.
- In the Wisdom of Sirach 2:1 it says, “My son, if you come forward to serve the Lord, prepare yourself for temptation.” Jesus’ temptation follows directly after his baptism because it demonstrates his worthiness to undertake the mission God has set before him. It also provides a model for believers to follow. If Jesus was tempted when he entered his public ministry then we should expect the same. Jesus’ faithfulness and endurance during these temptations provide a path for us to follow in.
- The temptations also confirm the declaration of Jesus as God’s beloved son during his baptism. The devil even asks in the first temptations, “If you are the Son of God…” (4:3) The temptations reveal that Jesus is fully human. If he wasn’t then there would have been no point to his being tempted. They also reveal that Jesus is God’s son who remained faithful even under the most pressing circumstances.
- Finally, Jesus’ baptism and being led in the wilderness for 40 days alludes to Israel being led in the wilderness for 40 years after passing through the Red Sea. The nation of Israel failed during their time of testing and as a result, God scattered them in the wilderness and waited until an entirely new generation before allowing them to enter the promised land. While Jesus’ temptation is much shorter (days versus years) there are several intertextual references between the two stories. Matthew wanted his readers to compare the stories of Israel’s time in the wilderness with Jesus’.
4:1 The wilderness
Sometimes the biblical authors provide us with on the barest of details. Matthew only tells us that the setting for Jesus’ temptations was in the wilderness. This is most likely the Judean Desert. A stretch of rugged, barren land that lies between the Judean highlands (where Jerusalem is) and the Dead Sea. It is about 75 miles long (north to south) and 10 miles wide. It is an extremely rugged terrain with cliffs and is very rocky. Food and water are only along the periphery of this region or a few springs located near the Dead Sea.
4:2 Jesus “fasted forty days and forty nights”
The number forty activates intertextual connections between Jesus and Moses. Moses spent 40 days and nights on Mount Sinai (Exodus 24;18; 34:38-40) and fasted during this time. One of the main themes that run throughout Matthew’s gospel is a comparison between Jesus’ ministry and teachings and those of Moses. It is not that Moses was bad, rather Matthew argues that Jesus is much greater.
The Three Temptations
Matthew and Luke both record Jesus’ temptations. Mark only has the introduction (Jesus being driven into the wilderness by the Spirit) and the conclusion (the angels came and ministered to him. Matthew and Luke fill out Mark’s account and provide us with the details of the three temptations. What is significant is that while they record the same three temptations they change the order of the second and third temptations.
Matthew’s Order |
Luke's Order |
Stone to Bread (4:3-4) |
Stone to Bread (4:3-4) |
Pinnacle of the Temple (4:5-7) |
Mountain and all the Kingdoms (4:5-8) |
Mountain and all the Kingdoms (4:8-10) |
Pinnacle of the Temple (4:9-12) |
What are some of the reasons why their order of events may be different? In Luke’s gospel, the Temple plays a central role in his narrative. This continues into the Book of Acts as well. This is most likely why Luke places the temptation for Jesus to throw himself off the pinnacle of the Temple last. By placing it last, he sets his readers up to see the Temptations in light of his other passages that revolve around the Temple as well.
Matthew placed the devil’s tempting Jesus with all the kingdoms on the top of a mountain last. Mountains play a central role at key points (Sermon on the Mount 5:1, the Transfiguration 17:1, and the Great Commission at the very conclusion 28:18-20) in Matthew’s gospel. Also, Jesus’ inheritance of all the nations of the world is central to Matthew’s theology. He opens his gospel with the story of the pagan Magi worshipping the infant Jesus. He concludes his gospel with the Great Commission to go and make disciples of all the nations (28:18-20). The temptation for Jesus to inherit all of the nations if he worshipped the devil is tied to Matthew’s missiological theology.
4:3 1st Temptation: Turning stone into bread
“If you are the Son of God, (εἰ υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ θεοῦ)” is a first-class conditional in Greek. The grammar behind this clause puts forward the idea that the speaker (the Devil) assumes that this is true. That Jesus really could turn a stone into bread. Satan is not questioning his sonship but using that as leverage to test Jesus’ obedience. Will he be an obedient son?
The logic behind this would go something like “If you are the son of God then turn these stones to bread.” The converse idea is in play at the same time, “If you aren’t the son of God then you can’t turn these stones to bread.” So does Jesus deny his sonship? Or does he disobey God’s leading him into the desert of fast? It is a test of his dedication. His commitment to prayer and fasting.
Jesus’ reply is from Deut. 8:3. “Man shall not live by bread alone but every word that proceeds from the mouth of the Lord.” In contrast to Israel who complained and wanted meat instead of God’s provision for them in the wilderness (Ex. 16:13-21) Jesus remains obedient and trusting in God.
4:5 2nd Temptation: Throwing himself off the Temple
This temptation is rather difficult to explain as it has no parallels in the Bible. This temptation is based on God’s promises in the OT that he would protect his children, especially in the Temple. (Dt. 32:9-11; Ps 36:7-8; 91). The Devil is quoting from Ps. 91. In the context of Psalm 91, this verse refers to how God looks over those worshipping in the Temple. If Jesus was God’s son then this promise of protection would apply even more to him. He could throw himself off the highest point in the Temple and now harm could come to him.
Other commentators argue that this temptation is for Jesus to reveal himself as the Messiah in a very public manner. By throwing himself off the pinnacle of the Temple Jesus would dramatically demonstrate to the crowd in the Temple that he as God’s son.
Jesus’ reply is very sweeping in nature. “You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.” The quotation is from Deut. 6:16. Jesus’ answer could have been used to answer all three of the temptations. It is a very general theological principle, we don’t test God or tell him what to do. The nature of Jesus’ response provides the church with a model to follow. The timeless and generic nature of his quote from Deut. 6:16 is something that Jesus’ followers can apply to their lives in diverse situations.
4:8 3rd Temptation: Worldly Kingdom
The third temptation is one more facet in Matthew’s rich teachings on the theme of God’s coming Kingdom. Perhaps the central teachings of Jesus’ ministry concerned the Kingdom of God. Pilate even had a placard nailed to the cross stating that Jesus was the “king of the Jews.”
The idea of Jesus being the son of God is not mentioned in this temptation. But because it was introduced in the first two temptations it most likely carries over into this one as well. Satan’s offer to give Jesus the kingdoms of the world if he worshipped him is a false promise. The nations of the world are not the devil’s to offer but belong to God (Dan 4:32, Psalm 2). In particular, Psalm 2 teaches that the Lord is king over all the nations and will give his son the nations as an inheritance.
The LORD said to me, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you.
Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage,
and the ends of the earth your possession. (Psalm 2:7-8, ESV)
The devil attempted to tempt Jesus by offering what was not his to give.
Jesus countered by quoting from Moses’ last instructions to Israel as they were about to enter into their promised land (inheritance) and warned them not to commit idolatry. (Dt. 6:10-15 and 32:17).
The devil is attempting to get Jesus to disobey God in two ways. First, if he were to accept this offer he would be acknowledging that Satan was in control of the world’s destiny rather than God. Second, he would commit idolatry by worshipping another god.
Jesus’ answers set up his later ministry
Jesus does not respond to any of the temptations in the 1st person. “That is not how I work.” Instead, he responded to each temptation the 3rd person, “That is not according to God’s word.”
The way that Jesus responded teaches us two important points. First, Jesus perceived himself as someone under authority. He viewed himself as an obedient son or faithful servant of God. Second, Jesus operated within the framework of the Hebrew Scriptures. In each of his responses, Jesus is portrayed as someone under and obedient to the Scriptures. This is a theme that Matthew weaves throughout his gospel (the most important passage concerning this is Matt 5:17-19). Jesus’ response to Satan by quoting Scripture gives us a model to follow when we are tempted. We trust in God, rely on his word, and make our supplications to the one true Lord.
One final point, the temptations introduce some of the themes found in the Lord’s Prayer. The temptation to turn stone to bread is echoed in the Lord’s prayer. “Give us today our daily bread” (6:11). In response to the Devil’s false offer of the kingdoms of the world, we are instructed to pray “Thy Kingdom come” (6:10). The Lord’s prayer closes with the words “Do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one” (6:13). In this way, the temptations set up the Lord’s Prayer. And the Lord’s Prayer gives us a concrete practice to equip and strengthen to walk faithfully with the Lord.
Matthew placed the devil’s tempting Jesus with all the kingdoms on the top of a mountain last. Mountains play a central role at key points (Sermon on the Mount 5:1, the Transfiguration 17:1, and the Great Commission at the very conclusion 28:18-20) in Matthew’s gospel. Also, Jesus’ inheritance of all the nations of the world is central to Matthew’s theology. He opens his gospel with the story of the pagan Magi worshipping the infant Jesus. He concludes his gospel with the Great Commission to go and make disciples of all the nations (28:18-20). The temptation for Jesus to inherit all of the nations if he worshipped the devil is tied to Matthew’s missiological theology.
4:3 1st Temptation: Turning stone into bread
“If you are the Son of God, (εἰ υἱὸς εἶ τοῦ θεοῦ)” is a first-class conditional in Greek. The grammar behind this clause puts forward the idea that the speaker (the Devil) assumes that this is true. That Jesus really could turn a stone into bread. Satan is not questioning his sonship but using that as leverage to test Jesus’ obedience. Will he be an obedient son?
The logic behind this would go something like “If you are the son of God then turn these stones to bread.” The converse idea is in play at the same time, “If you aren’t the son of God then you can’t turn these stones to bread.” So does Jesus deny his sonship? Or does he disobey God’s leading him into the desert of fast? It is a test of his dedication. His commitment to prayer and fasting.
Jesus’ reply is from Deut. 8:3. “Man shall not live by bread alone but every word that proceeds from the mouth of the Lord.” In contrast to Israel who complained and wanted meat instead of God’s provision for them in the wilderness (Ex. 16:13-21) Jesus remains obedient and trusting in God.
4:5 2nd Temptation: Throwing himself off the Temple
This temptation is rather difficult to explain as it has no parallels in the Bible. This temptation is based on God’s promises in the OT that he would protect his children, especially in the Temple. (Dt. 32:9-11; Ps 36:7-8; 91). The Devil is quoting from Ps. 91. In the context of Psalm 91, this verse refers to how God looks over those worshipping in the Temple. If Jesus was God’s son then this promise of protection would apply even more to him. He could throw himself off the highest point in the Temple and now harm could come to him.
Other commentators argue that this temptation is for Jesus to reveal himself as the Messiah in a very public manner. By throwing himself off the pinnacle of the Temple Jesus would dramatically demonstrate to the crowd in the Temple that he as God’s son.
Jesus’ reply is very sweeping in nature. “You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.” The quotation is from Deut. 6:16. Jesus’ answer could have been used to answer all three of the temptations. It is a very general theological principle, we don’t test God or tell him what to do. The nature of Jesus’ response provides the church with a model to follow. The timeless and generic nature of his quote from Deut. 6:16 is something that Jesus’ followers can apply to their lives in diverse situations.
4:8 3rd Temptation: Worldly Kingdom
The third temptation is one more facet in Matthew’s rich teachings on the theme of God’s coming Kingdom. Perhaps the central teachings of Jesus’ ministry concerned the Kingdom of God. Pilate even had a placard nailed to the cross stating that Jesus was the “king of the Jews.”
The idea of Jesus being the son of God is not mentioned in this temptation. But because it was introduced in the first two temptations it most likely carries over into this one as well. Satan’s offer to give Jesus the kingdoms of the world if he worshipped him is a false promise. The nations of the world are not the devil’s to offer but belong to God (Dan 4:32, Psalm 2). In particular, Psalm 2 teaches that the Lord is king over all the nations and will give his son the nations as an inheritance.
The LORD said to me, “You are my Son; today I have begotten you.
Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage,
and the ends of the earth your possession. (Psalm 2:7-8, ESV)
The devil attempted to tempt Jesus by offering what was not his to give.
Jesus countered by quoting from Moses’ last instructions to Israel as they were about to enter into their promised land (inheritance) and warned them not to commit idolatry. (Dt. 6:10-15 and 32:17).
The devil is attempting to get Jesus to disobey God in two ways. First, if he were to accept this offer he would be acknowledging that Satan was in control of the world’s destiny rather than God. Second, he would commit idolatry by worshipping another god.
Jesus’ answers set up his later ministry
Jesus does not respond to any of the temptations in the 1st person. “That is not how I work.” Instead, he responded to each temptation the 3rd person, “That is not according to God’s word.”
The way that Jesus responded teaches us two important points. First, Jesus perceived himself as someone under authority. He viewed himself as an obedient son or faithful servant of God. Second, Jesus operated within the framework of the Hebrew Scriptures. In each of his responses, Jesus is portrayed as someone under and obedient to the Scriptures. This is a theme that Matthew weaves throughout his gospel (the most important passage concerning this is Matt 5:17-19). Jesus’ response to Satan by quoting Scripture gives us a model to follow when we are tempted. We trust in God, rely on his word, and make our supplications to the one true Lord.
One final point, the temptations introduce some of the themes found in the Lord’s Prayer. The temptation to turn stone to bread is echoed in the Lord’s prayer. “Give us today our daily bread” (6:11). In response to the Devil’s false offer of the kingdoms of the world, we are instructed to pray “Thy Kingdom come” (6:10). The Lord’s prayer closes with the words “Do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one” (6:13). In this way, the temptations set up the Lord’s Prayer. And the Lord’s Prayer gives us a concrete practice to equip and strengthen to walk faithfully with the Lord.
Second Sunday of Lent
Old Testament
Genesis 12:1-9
The book of Genesis can be divided into two parts: BA and AA. Before Abraham (BA) and After Abraham (AA). This week’s reading is the transition from BA to AA. It is the beginning of Abraham’s story, the father of the Jewish nation.
Abraham’s story begins at 11:27, not in chapter 12. That verse begins with “this is the account of Terah…”(אֵ֙לֶּה֙ תּוֹלְדֹ֣ת תֶּ֔רַח, ͗elleh toledah Terah). A more literal translation of this phrase would be “these are the generations of…” This phrase is used to introduce a new section in the book of Genesis. In Genesis 2:4 it is used to introduce “the account of the heavens and the earth…” In this passage, it signals the start of the story of Abraham.
The author introduces the story of Abraham with an abbreviated genealogy of his father, Terah. This passage opens with “these are the generations of…” but instead of being treated to a genealogy, as is the case in other passages in Genesis, we are only told about Terah and his children.
In 11:28-32 provides the reader with three important ideas. First, it explains Abraham’s relationship to Lot. Second, Terah was the one who initiated his family’s migration from Ur and to another land. Third, Lot’s father, Haran, died in the land of his birth, Ur of the Chaldeans. This raises an interesting question. Because the Chaldeans do not come along until the first millennium B.C. why are they mentioned here? On the one hand, it may be an indication that Genesis was not written until around 1000 BC at the earliest. On the other hand, it might be a scribal addition for the sake of clarity. And finally, this passage introduces perhaps the central challenge confronting Abraham, his lack of an heir.“Sarah was barren; she had no children.” (11:30) Sarah’s infertility is mentioned twice in this verse for emphasis.
The travel narrative begins in 11:31. Terah set out from Ur to Canaan with his family. They only make it to Haran where Terah died. It is while in Haran, that Abram is called by God to go to the land he will show him. (12:1)
The migration that Terah and Abraham were leading their family on would have been very incredibly challenging. Travel was dangerous and leaving one’s tribal community meant they were without protection, community, and security. Perhaps the closest parallel today is to refugee families fleeing everything to save their families by seeking shelter in another land.
Genesis 12:1-3
12:1 “Go from your country”
“Go!” (or “walk!”) is an imperative in the Hebrew. This is then followed by three other verbs that describe God’s actions: “I will show,” I will make you,” and “I will bless you.” The grammar is constructed along the lines of “Go! And I will…” The blessings are contingent on Abraham trusting and being obedient to God’s command.
12:2-3 “Bless”
Five times the word ‘bless’ (בָּרַךְ, kneel, bless) is used in 12:2-3. The ‘blessing’ in this passage concern in three areas: a land, a seed (heir), and a blessing to all the families of the earth through Abraham. God’s promise to bless all the families of the earth through Abraham is a note of grace after God’s judgment in the account of the Tower of Babel (11:1-9).
Paul interprets this blessing that is extended to all the families of the earth as being fulfilled through the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. In a similar manner, Matthew concluded his gospel with a command that parallels Abrahams, “Go and make disciples of all the nations of the world … and lo, I am with you always.” (Matthew 28:18-20) The command to “go” into all the world to proclaim the blessings of God is not something that was invented after Christ’s resurrection. It dates back to God’s promises to Abraham.
12:6
Abraham’s entry into the land of Canaan is very selective. Only three locations in the land are mentioned: Shechem (v.6), Bethel and Ai (v.8), and the Negev (v.9). Abraham is moving through the land from north to south. These three locations will also be mentioned in Jacob’s return from his uncle in Genesis 34-35. They also play key locations in Israel’s conquest of the promised land in the book of Joshua.
12:7
Once in Canaan God appears to Abram and elaborates on the blessing. “To your seed I will give this land.” This idea of seed goes back to Genesis 3 (God’s promise to Eve) and Genesis 4 (when God gives Eve another seed, Seth).
Themes Introduced in this Story
God’s promises and plans do not come in the manner we anticipate. The promise of a “seed” goes back to Eve and will continue through the stories of Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph. In Genesis 4 Eve declared “I have produced a man, like the Lord” (4:1). But God did not work through her Cain (who she made this declaration about) or Abel. Rather, God worked through her third son, Seth. A similar story arc is seen in the seed promised to Abraham. Abraham and Sarah attempt to fulfill this promise by using Sarah’s slave Hagar as a surrogate mother. The attention given to the story of Ismael reveals Abraham and Sarah’s misconceptions about God’s promise. God fulfills his promises often in ways that surprise us.
Abraham’s journeys also prefigure the nation of Israel’s experiences. He was called from Ur of the Chaldeans. Later he will journey to Egypt to escape a severe famine. This will be echoed in the story of Joseph and his 12 brothers seeking refuge in Egypt.
The authors of the Bible did not write to record history or information. Rather they structure their stories in such a manner that we should be able to see implications from the lives of their characters, to the lives of others in the Bible, to our lives, and even to the future. “The past is not allowed to remain in the past. Its lessons are drawn for the future. Behind the pattern stands a faithful, loving God. What he has done with Abraham, he will do for his people today and tomorrow.” (John H. Sailhamer, Genesis, vol. 2 in Expositor’s Bible Commentary [Accordance electronic ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990] paragraph 6652).
Old Testament
Genesis 12:1-9
The book of Genesis can be divided into two parts: BA and AA. Before Abraham (BA) and After Abraham (AA). This week’s reading is the transition from BA to AA. It is the beginning of Abraham’s story, the father of the Jewish nation.
Abraham’s story begins at 11:27, not in chapter 12. That verse begins with “this is the account of Terah…”(אֵ֙לֶּה֙ תּוֹלְדֹ֣ת תֶּ֔רַח, ͗elleh toledah Terah). A more literal translation of this phrase would be “these are the generations of…” This phrase is used to introduce a new section in the book of Genesis. In Genesis 2:4 it is used to introduce “the account of the heavens and the earth…” In this passage, it signals the start of the story of Abraham.
The author introduces the story of Abraham with an abbreviated genealogy of his father, Terah. This passage opens with “these are the generations of…” but instead of being treated to a genealogy, as is the case in other passages in Genesis, we are only told about Terah and his children.
In 11:28-32 provides the reader with three important ideas. First, it explains Abraham’s relationship to Lot. Second, Terah was the one who initiated his family’s migration from Ur and to another land. Third, Lot’s father, Haran, died in the land of his birth, Ur of the Chaldeans. This raises an interesting question. Because the Chaldeans do not come along until the first millennium B.C. why are they mentioned here? On the one hand, it may be an indication that Genesis was not written until around 1000 BC at the earliest. On the other hand, it might be a scribal addition for the sake of clarity. And finally, this passage introduces perhaps the central challenge confronting Abraham, his lack of an heir.“Sarah was barren; she had no children.” (11:30) Sarah’s infertility is mentioned twice in this verse for emphasis.
The travel narrative begins in 11:31. Terah set out from Ur to Canaan with his family. They only make it to Haran where Terah died. It is while in Haran, that Abram is called by God to go to the land he will show him. (12:1)
The migration that Terah and Abraham were leading their family on would have been very incredibly challenging. Travel was dangerous and leaving one’s tribal community meant they were without protection, community, and security. Perhaps the closest parallel today is to refugee families fleeing everything to save their families by seeking shelter in another land.
Genesis 12:1-3
12:1 “Go from your country”
“Go!” (or “walk!”) is an imperative in the Hebrew. This is then followed by three other verbs that describe God’s actions: “I will show,” I will make you,” and “I will bless you.” The grammar is constructed along the lines of “Go! And I will…” The blessings are contingent on Abraham trusting and being obedient to God’s command.
12:2-3 “Bless”
Five times the word ‘bless’ (בָּרַךְ, kneel, bless) is used in 12:2-3. The ‘blessing’ in this passage concern in three areas: a land, a seed (heir), and a blessing to all the families of the earth through Abraham. God’s promise to bless all the families of the earth through Abraham is a note of grace after God’s judgment in the account of the Tower of Babel (11:1-9).
Paul interprets this blessing that is extended to all the families of the earth as being fulfilled through the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. In a similar manner, Matthew concluded his gospel with a command that parallels Abrahams, “Go and make disciples of all the nations of the world … and lo, I am with you always.” (Matthew 28:18-20) The command to “go” into all the world to proclaim the blessings of God is not something that was invented after Christ’s resurrection. It dates back to God’s promises to Abraham.
12:6
Abraham’s entry into the land of Canaan is very selective. Only three locations in the land are mentioned: Shechem (v.6), Bethel and Ai (v.8), and the Negev (v.9). Abraham is moving through the land from north to south. These three locations will also be mentioned in Jacob’s return from his uncle in Genesis 34-35. They also play key locations in Israel’s conquest of the promised land in the book of Joshua.
12:7
Once in Canaan God appears to Abram and elaborates on the blessing. “To your seed I will give this land.” This idea of seed goes back to Genesis 3 (God’s promise to Eve) and Genesis 4 (when God gives Eve another seed, Seth).
Themes Introduced in this Story
God’s promises and plans do not come in the manner we anticipate. The promise of a “seed” goes back to Eve and will continue through the stories of Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph. In Genesis 4 Eve declared “I have produced a man, like the Lord” (4:1). But God did not work through her Cain (who she made this declaration about) or Abel. Rather, God worked through her third son, Seth. A similar story arc is seen in the seed promised to Abraham. Abraham and Sarah attempt to fulfill this promise by using Sarah’s slave Hagar as a surrogate mother. The attention given to the story of Ismael reveals Abraham and Sarah’s misconceptions about God’s promise. God fulfills his promises often in ways that surprise us.
Abraham’s journeys also prefigure the nation of Israel’s experiences. He was called from Ur of the Chaldeans. Later he will journey to Egypt to escape a severe famine. This will be echoed in the story of Joseph and his 12 brothers seeking refuge in Egypt.
The authors of the Bible did not write to record history or information. Rather they structure their stories in such a manner that we should be able to see implications from the lives of their characters, to the lives of others in the Bible, to our lives, and even to the future. “The past is not allowed to remain in the past. Its lessons are drawn for the future. Behind the pattern stands a faithful, loving God. What he has done with Abraham, he will do for his people today and tomorrow.” (John H. Sailhamer, Genesis, vol. 2 in Expositor’s Bible Commentary [Accordance electronic ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990] paragraph 6652).
Second Sunday of Lent
Psalm 33:12-22
Psalm 33 calls on the people of Israel to “shout for joy” because of God (33:1). It celebrates the greatness of the Lord, his watch over the nations, and how he is worthy of our trust. God’s faithfulness is contrasted with the false hope that is often placed in a nation’s military power (33:16). In a certain sense, this Psalm offers a critique of nationalistic agendas during Israel’s monarchy and can be read similarly today.
33:1-9
The Psalm opens with a call to praise God “Shout … praise … give thanks … make melody … sing” (33:1-3). In verse 4-9 God is to be praised because of his acts of creation and command over it. God’s works are done in righteousness (33:4), the earth is full of his love (33:5), he created the heavens and the earth (33:6), and all the earth stands in awe of him (33:9).
33:10-12
In this section the psalmist transitions from God’s actions over creation to the nation of Israel in particular. This is especially seen in verse 12 “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord.” God’s counsel (advice - used three times in verses 10 and 11) guides Israel and protects it from other nations.
33:13-15
In these three verses, God is pictured as watching over humanity and in particular their rulers. If God ‘advised’ in the previous section God observes all the nations in this section. He ‘looks down’ and ‘sees’ (33:13), ‘looks out’ (33:14), and ‘observes all their deeds’ (33:15). God not only rules over all creation but he actively keeps his eye on it.
33:16-19
Israel was a small nation that often found itself situated between two great superpowers. Egypt to the south and Hittites, Assyrians, Babylonians, or the Persians to the north. Having a strong national defense would have been incredibly important for them and at the same time an ambition that they might be tempted to place their hope in.
This section subverts those nationalistic ideals. As opposed to God who rules over all creation a king is not “saved by his great army.” (33:16a) The strength of a warrior is a false hope as well. (33:16b) “The war horse” was one of the most powerful implements for warfare in the ancient world (33:17). Until Solomon acquired horses, built stables, and a fleet of chariots, Israel was at a military disadvantage to the other nations. It was the greatest military tech a king could possess. Yet even that was a false hope for salvation (deliverance or security).
In 33:16-17 three different stanzas refute placing our trust in military power. These include “A king is not saved” (יָשַׁע, yasha - to deliver or be saved in battle). In 33:17 a soldier “is not delivered by his strength” (נָצַלnatzal - escape from, be delivered, snatched away). And the great strength of the war horse is a lie (שֶׁקֶר, šeqer - falseness or deception) and cannot save (מָלַט, malat - slip away, escape from). The psalmist employed a rich and colorful vocabulary to warn us of these false hopes.
In verse 18-19 the Psalmist returns to God’s watchful eye. As opposed to the futility of trusting in military strength God watches over those who trust him and delivers them. Not just from times of warfare but from enemies that an army is no match for, death and famine.
33:20-22
The Psalm closes with a ‘call and response’ pattern.
Call: Our soul waits for the LORD;
Response: he is our help and shield.
Call: Our heart is glad in him,
Response: because we trust in his holy name.
Call: Let your steadfast love, O LORD, be upon us,
Response: even as we hope in you.
The closing section bookends the opening section (33:1-3) but is much more personal.
Psalm 33:12-22
Psalm 33 calls on the people of Israel to “shout for joy” because of God (33:1). It celebrates the greatness of the Lord, his watch over the nations, and how he is worthy of our trust. God’s faithfulness is contrasted with the false hope that is often placed in a nation’s military power (33:16). In a certain sense, this Psalm offers a critique of nationalistic agendas during Israel’s monarchy and can be read similarly today.
33:1-9
The Psalm opens with a call to praise God “Shout … praise … give thanks … make melody … sing” (33:1-3). In verse 4-9 God is to be praised because of his acts of creation and command over it. God’s works are done in righteousness (33:4), the earth is full of his love (33:5), he created the heavens and the earth (33:6), and all the earth stands in awe of him (33:9).
33:10-12
In this section the psalmist transitions from God’s actions over creation to the nation of Israel in particular. This is especially seen in verse 12 “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord.” God’s counsel (advice - used three times in verses 10 and 11) guides Israel and protects it from other nations.
33:13-15
In these three verses, God is pictured as watching over humanity and in particular their rulers. If God ‘advised’ in the previous section God observes all the nations in this section. He ‘looks down’ and ‘sees’ (33:13), ‘looks out’ (33:14), and ‘observes all their deeds’ (33:15). God not only rules over all creation but he actively keeps his eye on it.
33:16-19
Israel was a small nation that often found itself situated between two great superpowers. Egypt to the south and Hittites, Assyrians, Babylonians, or the Persians to the north. Having a strong national defense would have been incredibly important for them and at the same time an ambition that they might be tempted to place their hope in.
This section subverts those nationalistic ideals. As opposed to God who rules over all creation a king is not “saved by his great army.” (33:16a) The strength of a warrior is a false hope as well. (33:16b) “The war horse” was one of the most powerful implements for warfare in the ancient world (33:17). Until Solomon acquired horses, built stables, and a fleet of chariots, Israel was at a military disadvantage to the other nations. It was the greatest military tech a king could possess. Yet even that was a false hope for salvation (deliverance or security).
In 33:16-17 three different stanzas refute placing our trust in military power. These include “A king is not saved” (יָשַׁע, yasha - to deliver or be saved in battle). In 33:17 a soldier “is not delivered by his strength” (נָצַלnatzal - escape from, be delivered, snatched away). And the great strength of the war horse is a lie (שֶׁקֶר, šeqer - falseness or deception) and cannot save (מָלַט, malat - slip away, escape from). The psalmist employed a rich and colorful vocabulary to warn us of these false hopes.
In verse 18-19 the Psalmist returns to God’s watchful eye. As opposed to the futility of trusting in military strength God watches over those who trust him and delivers them. Not just from times of warfare but from enemies that an army is no match for, death and famine.
33:20-22
The Psalm closes with a ‘call and response’ pattern.
Call: Our soul waits for the LORD;
Response: he is our help and shield.
Call: Our heart is glad in him,
Response: because we trust in his holy name.
Call: Let your steadfast love, O LORD, be upon us,
Response: even as we hope in you.
The closing section bookends the opening section (33:1-3) but is much more personal.
Second Sunday of Lent
Epistle
Romans 4:1-17
The central theme for the letter to the Romans is stated toward the very start of the letter. Immediately after delivering the proem to the letter Paul writes,
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is God’s power for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For the righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel from faith to faith, just as it is written, “The righteous by faith will live.” Romans 1:16-17, NET
This reading from the lectionary is paired with the story of Abraham in Genesis 12. However, Romans 4 appeals to Abraham’s experiences in Genesis 15 and 17.
In his epistle to the Romans, Paul appeals to the story of Abraham to argue two points. First, he uses the story of Abraham to indicate how someone should respond to the gospel by faith. In Romans 4:3, Paul quotes from Genesis 15:6, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” Abraham trusted that God would fulfill his promises. As such, he presents an ideal role model for us to follow.
Second, Paul not only uses Abraham to teach about salvation (soteriological) but also to defend the inclusion of the Gentiles among the people of God and his mission to all the nations (missiological).
•Romans 4:18: God’s promise to make Abraham a father of many nations is used to make two points in this passage. First, it directly applies to Abraham believing in God’s promises. Second, the reference to Abraham becoming the father of many nations is fulfilled in Jesus’ death on the cross and the gospel being proclaimed among the Gentiles. This would be seen as a word of encouragement to the believers in Rome, most of whom were not Jewish. It is also directly related to the mandate to take the gospel to all people, languages, and nations on the face of the earth.
4:1-5
God’s promise to give Abraham a land (a theme that is central to the grand narrative of the Hebrew Scriptures) is totally ignored by Paul. Instead, he focuses on God’s promise of a seed and Abraham’s response to that promise. Abraham, for Paul, is the very image of faith. This allows Paul to contrast Abraham’s faith with that of following the Law (Rom 4:2-5).
For Paul, the central issue from the story of Abraham is seen in 4:3. How was Abraham made righteous? Abraham believed God. That’s it. This is the lens by which Paul reads the story of Abraham and uses that story in the letter to the Romans.
Abraham’s response to God’s promise applies to this Sunday’s reading from Genesis 12 as well.
Abraham responded by faith to God’s command to “Go” form his homeland to a land that God had promised (Gen 12:1-3). Without this initial act of obedience and faith in God, there would have been no story of Abraham. Abraham’s act of faith in Genesis 12 preceded the covenant God would later make with Abraham and sets the stage for Abraham’s later acts of faith in God (Gen 15:7ff).
4:9-12
This raises the question, was this blessing by God to Abraham only for the circumcised? Paul answers this question by considering when Abraham received these promises. In particular, did Abraham receive the blessings before or after he was circumcised? The answer is pretty clear from Genesis, it was before he was circumcised (Genesis 17:10-11).
4:13 Heir of the world
Is Paul taking liberties with the story of Abraham by claiming that he would inherit the world? One of the main points Paul wants to communicate through the story of Abraham is that both Jew and Gentile are heirs of God’s redemptive work. In 4:12 Paul writes Abraham is the “father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.” (ESV) Abraham is the father of faith to both Jew and Gentile.
The promise to inherit “the world” (Greek κόσμος, kosmos) can refer to the physical planet or the people that live on it (everyone alive). In this context, Paul is referring to all who live on the Earth. The reference to ’inherit the world’ indicates that Abraham’s faith would become a model for everyone who ever lived on the Earth. It is not based on our obedience to the Law (or anything else) that justifies us before God, but like Abraham, it is based on our believing God.
4:16-17
Paul returns to the idea of faith once again and defines it a bit more. Abraham’s faith is crucial because it was based on God’s grace. This grace is extended not just to those who are physical descendants of Abraham but to his spiritual offspring as well. This is why Abraham is the “father of us all.”
Paul closes this section with one final quote from Genesis 17:5, “I have made you the father of many nations” (Romans 4:17 ESV).
Abraham’s story not only teaches us what saving faith looks like but also reveals that God’s plan for all the nations of the world did not originate with Paul but goes all the way back to the book of Genesis.
From the very start of the Jewish nation, God’s heart was for all the nations of the world, not just the physical descendants of Abraham. Both Jews and Gentiles are brought into one family with Abraham as our forefather. As children of this new family, we need to see the world in light of this new reality. Our ethnic, religious or national identity (Jew vs Gentile) does not open the door to salvation for us (or how we primarily conceive of our identity). Rather, we are heirs of Abraham because we follow his example of believing in God’s promises. A promise of salvation that is open to everyone and incorporates us into a new family.
For a more detailed discussion of this passage see:
N. T. Wright, “Paul and the Patriarch: the role of Abraham in Romans 4,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament (35.3) 207-241.
Epistle
Romans 4:1-17
The central theme for the letter to the Romans is stated toward the very start of the letter. Immediately after delivering the proem to the letter Paul writes,
For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is God’s power for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For the righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel from faith to faith, just as it is written, “The righteous by faith will live.” Romans 1:16-17, NET
This reading from the lectionary is paired with the story of Abraham in Genesis 12. However, Romans 4 appeals to Abraham’s experiences in Genesis 15 and 17.
In his epistle to the Romans, Paul appeals to the story of Abraham to argue two points. First, he uses the story of Abraham to indicate how someone should respond to the gospel by faith. In Romans 4:3, Paul quotes from Genesis 15:6, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” Abraham trusted that God would fulfill his promises. As such, he presents an ideal role model for us to follow.
Second, Paul not only uses Abraham to teach about salvation (soteriological) but also to defend the inclusion of the Gentiles among the people of God and his mission to all the nations (missiological).
•Romans 4:18: God’s promise to make Abraham a father of many nations is used to make two points in this passage. First, it directly applies to Abraham believing in God’s promises. Second, the reference to Abraham becoming the father of many nations is fulfilled in Jesus’ death on the cross and the gospel being proclaimed among the Gentiles. This would be seen as a word of encouragement to the believers in Rome, most of whom were not Jewish. It is also directly related to the mandate to take the gospel to all people, languages, and nations on the face of the earth.
4:1-5
God’s promise to give Abraham a land (a theme that is central to the grand narrative of the Hebrew Scriptures) is totally ignored by Paul. Instead, he focuses on God’s promise of a seed and Abraham’s response to that promise. Abraham, for Paul, is the very image of faith. This allows Paul to contrast Abraham’s faith with that of following the Law (Rom 4:2-5).
For Paul, the central issue from the story of Abraham is seen in 4:3. How was Abraham made righteous? Abraham believed God. That’s it. This is the lens by which Paul reads the story of Abraham and uses that story in the letter to the Romans.
Abraham’s response to God’s promise applies to this Sunday’s reading from Genesis 12 as well.
Abraham responded by faith to God’s command to “Go” form his homeland to a land that God had promised (Gen 12:1-3). Without this initial act of obedience and faith in God, there would have been no story of Abraham. Abraham’s act of faith in Genesis 12 preceded the covenant God would later make with Abraham and sets the stage for Abraham’s later acts of faith in God (Gen 15:7ff).
4:9-12
This raises the question, was this blessing by God to Abraham only for the circumcised? Paul answers this question by considering when Abraham received these promises. In particular, did Abraham receive the blessings before or after he was circumcised? The answer is pretty clear from Genesis, it was before he was circumcised (Genesis 17:10-11).
4:13 Heir of the world
Is Paul taking liberties with the story of Abraham by claiming that he would inherit the world? One of the main points Paul wants to communicate through the story of Abraham is that both Jew and Gentile are heirs of God’s redemptive work. In 4:12 Paul writes Abraham is the “father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.” (ESV) Abraham is the father of faith to both Jew and Gentile.
The promise to inherit “the world” (Greek κόσμος, kosmos) can refer to the physical planet or the people that live on it (everyone alive). In this context, Paul is referring to all who live on the Earth. The reference to ’inherit the world’ indicates that Abraham’s faith would become a model for everyone who ever lived on the Earth. It is not based on our obedience to the Law (or anything else) that justifies us before God, but like Abraham, it is based on our believing God.
4:16-17
Paul returns to the idea of faith once again and defines it a bit more. Abraham’s faith is crucial because it was based on God’s grace. This grace is extended not just to those who are physical descendants of Abraham but to his spiritual offspring as well. This is why Abraham is the “father of us all.”
Paul closes this section with one final quote from Genesis 17:5, “I have made you the father of many nations” (Romans 4:17 ESV).
Abraham’s story not only teaches us what saving faith looks like but also reveals that God’s plan for all the nations of the world did not originate with Paul but goes all the way back to the book of Genesis.
From the very start of the Jewish nation, God’s heart was for all the nations of the world, not just the physical descendants of Abraham. Both Jews and Gentiles are brought into one family with Abraham as our forefather. As children of this new family, we need to see the world in light of this new reality. Our ethnic, religious or national identity (Jew vs Gentile) does not open the door to salvation for us (or how we primarily conceive of our identity). Rather, we are heirs of Abraham because we follow his example of believing in God’s promises. A promise of salvation that is open to everyone and incorporates us into a new family.
For a more detailed discussion of this passage see:
N. T. Wright, “Paul and the Patriarch: the role of Abraham in Romans 4,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament (35.3) 207-241.
Second Sunday of Lent A
Gospel
John 3:1-16
John chapter 3 is one of the better-known passages in the New Testament. This is both a blessing and a curse. On the blessing side, most people know it and are familiar with its main ideas. On the curse side, this familiarity can create misunderstanding about the text.
Jesus encounter with Nicodemus is part of a broader narrative that runs from the Wedding at Cana in John ch, 2 to Jesus’ discourse with the Samaritan Woman in ch. 4.
There are several themes that run through this entire narrative section. The themes of water and the spirit run through both stories. At the wedding, Jesus turned water into wine. The idea of water is central in Jesus’ discourse with Nicodemus. In both stories, the lack of understanding plays an important role. The stone jars in the first story are related to Jewish purification rights. Nicodemus (a Pharisee and Jewish leader) would have been one of the people responsible for teaching those principles of purification. In the first story, a comparison made between wine and the ‘good wine’ is made. Being born of flesh and being born from above is compared in Nicodemus’ encounter with Jesus.
3:1
John chapter 3 opens abruptly with Nicodemus coming to see Jesus. As with most biblical stories, the reader is provided a bare minimum of details about him. All that John tells us is that he is a Pharisees and a ruler of the Jews (later John will specify this more by telling us that he was a member of the Sanhedrin).
3:2
If the reader is only given a few details about Nicodemus John is, even more, sparing in the setting for this story. All we are told is that it was night. Night normally carries negative connotations in a narrative.
In John’s gospel, light/dark and day/night are important metaphorical concepts that carry a great deal of theological weight. In the prologue, John writes that “The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not mastered (comprehended or overcome) it.” (1:5 NET trans. with a slight expansion). John’s prologue provides the lens through which the reader is to understand his Gospel. Nicodemus came to Jesus (the light) at night. Their conversation ended with him not understanding Jesus (he will later in John’s gospel though). In John 3, Nicodemus portrays someone in darkness who is on a journey to the light of the world.
“Perform the miraculous signs…” The miracle that Jesus has done in John’s gospel so far was changing the water into wine at the Wedding at Cana. This seems to be a subtle clue from John that we should see a connection between the two stories.
3:3
Instead of replying to Nicodemus’ statement, Jesus changes the subject, "you must be born again.” The Greek word ἄνωθεν (anōthen) can mean "again" or "from above" (see 3:7 and 31 where the same Greek word is used). Most likely a double entendre is implied here. Making double references, or play on words, like this is one of John’s favorite literary techniques.
3:4
Nicodemus’ response to Jesus' statement is humorous. The reader is struck by how silly his question is. Like the steward at the wedding in 2:9, Nicodemus’ response reveals his lack of understanding. The reader finds this silly because in the prologue John has provided us with insider information about who Jesus is and God’s plan of salvation.
Even a first-time reader of John would know this. This split between what the reader knows and what Nicodemus does not know makes his response seem absurd. But this serves an important role. Our engagement with Nicodemus’ answer should stimulate us to think through Jesus’ teachings at a deeper level.
3:5 Water and the Spirit
The theme of water from the Wedding at Cana is reintroduced at this point. Instead of being connected with the “new wine” that Jesus created it is used in connection with the “new birth” of salvation in this passage. The references to “water and spirit” have been understood in a number of different ways:
1) Physical and spiritual birth. This interpretation is not very strong since both water and spirit” are part of a conditional clause, “unless” ( Greek ἐὰν μή, ean mh). Since both are part of the same clause it is best to read them as related terms.
2) Christian baptism. “Water and spirit” have been interpreted to teach that a person needs to believe and be baptized. This reading does not fit the context since Nicodemus would not have known about this practice.
3) Fulfillment of the prophecy in Ezekiel 36:25,26. “I will sprinkle you with pure water, and you will be clean from all your impurities. I will purify you from all your idols. I will give you a new heart, and I will put a new spirit within you. I will remove the heart of stone from your body and give you a heart of flesh.” (Ez 36:25-26 NET)
Nicodemus would have been very familiar with the OT, especially teachings concerning the Messiah. The connection between cleansing by water and the gift of a new spirit fit the context of Jesus’ discussion with Nicodemus.
3:8 The Wind and the Spirit
The verse contains an extended word-play on the Greek word πνεῦμα (pneuma). This word can be translated as wind, breath, human spirit (see Gen 2 where God breathes into Adam and he comes to life), or the Spirit (Holy Spirit). In verse 8 John includes a
number of references to this πνεῦμα (pneuma).
“The wind blows (verb from the same root) where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
The spirit (of God) is mysterious. It is like the wind (same Greek word). You hear it but don't know where it comes from or where it is heading. Same with God’s Spirit. We don't understand where it came from (God’s plan?) or where the Spirit will blow us. Understanding God’s Spirit eludes human understanding. Neither Jesus nor the work of the Spirit in a person’s life, are easy to understand but demand a great deal of discernment and insight.
3:9,10 Teacher of Israel
As the “the teacher of Israel,” Nicodemus should have known this. He is pictured as the pinnacle of Jewish teaching and at the same time the embodiment of misunderstanding.
The story opened with Nicodemus approaching Jesus and making a power statement, “we know…” As the story progressed, Nicodemus’ ignorance is uncovered and Jesus’ superior teaching became apparent.
3:11 “Truly, I say to you, we…”
A narrative shift occurs in this verse. And this raises an interpretive question. Who is speaking in verses 11-16? Is John still relating the words of Jesus or is he interjecting a short section on salvation at this point?
It is interesting is to notice how different translations handle this passage. This is readily apparent in red-letter Bibles (they print the words of Jesus are in red). Some red-letter Bibles have the entire passage (down to verse 16) in red. Others switch to black letters at verse 11 and some make the shift somewhere in between. Once again, this is a literary trait of John’s. He likes to transition from retelling an event from the life of Christ to his theological teachings on that topic. Often in a very seamless manner.
3:14-15 Just as the serpent was lifted up in the wilderness.
In Numbers 21 God sent venomous serpents to bite the people of Israel because of their disobedience. At the same time, God directed Moses to provide a remedy. Moses was to place a placard of a servant on a pole. All they had to do was look at this and they would be healed from the snake bite.
In John’s gospel, the idea of being lifted up refers to both Jesus' death and his resurrection in John (see also John 8:28; 12:32).
Eternal life. In first-century Jewish theology, eternal life was something that God gave from above and would come in the future age. This is closely related to Jesus’ wordplay in 3:3 that you must be “born again/from above.” God is in the heavens above, we live on the world below. We live now but salvation is in the age to come.
3:16 For God so loved …
If there was a question about who was speaking in verses 11-15 (Jesus or John) that question is more or less settled in this verse.
A dramatic shift in verbal action occurs in this verse. It no longer fits the context of a discussion between Jesus and Nicodemus and takes an eternal perspective. This takes the reader out of the story and back to the eternal perspective with which John opened his Gospel. John accomplishes this by his use of aorist verbs (used to summarize what God has done) to refer to God’s actions of “sent,” “condemned,” and “saved.” (3:16-17)
God’s eternal plan is that whoever “believes” will not perish but is saved through God’s Son.
“Looking back at Jesus-history after the resurrection, the narrator takes us into the bosom of the Father in order to reveal the divine initiative and purpose in giving the monogenes, God’s one and only Son … There is therefore a progression in John’s storytelling from revelation about the Spirit (3:5-8) to revelation about the Son (3:13-15), to revelation about the Father (3:16-21). The narrator guides us into the very heart of the Triune God.” (Mark Stibbe, John [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993] p. 57-58).
Gospel
John 3:1-16
John chapter 3 is one of the better-known passages in the New Testament. This is both a blessing and a curse. On the blessing side, most people know it and are familiar with its main ideas. On the curse side, this familiarity can create misunderstanding about the text.
Jesus encounter with Nicodemus is part of a broader narrative that runs from the Wedding at Cana in John ch, 2 to Jesus’ discourse with the Samaritan Woman in ch. 4.
There are several themes that run through this entire narrative section. The themes of water and the spirit run through both stories. At the wedding, Jesus turned water into wine. The idea of water is central in Jesus’ discourse with Nicodemus. In both stories, the lack of understanding plays an important role. The stone jars in the first story are related to Jewish purification rights. Nicodemus (a Pharisee and Jewish leader) would have been one of the people responsible for teaching those principles of purification. In the first story, a comparison made between wine and the ‘good wine’ is made. Being born of flesh and being born from above is compared in Nicodemus’ encounter with Jesus.
3:1
John chapter 3 opens abruptly with Nicodemus coming to see Jesus. As with most biblical stories, the reader is provided a bare minimum of details about him. All that John tells us is that he is a Pharisees and a ruler of the Jews (later John will specify this more by telling us that he was a member of the Sanhedrin).
3:2
If the reader is only given a few details about Nicodemus John is, even more, sparing in the setting for this story. All we are told is that it was night. Night normally carries negative connotations in a narrative.
In John’s gospel, light/dark and day/night are important metaphorical concepts that carry a great deal of theological weight. In the prologue, John writes that “The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not mastered (comprehended or overcome) it.” (1:5 NET trans. with a slight expansion). John’s prologue provides the lens through which the reader is to understand his Gospel. Nicodemus came to Jesus (the light) at night. Their conversation ended with him not understanding Jesus (he will later in John’s gospel though). In John 3, Nicodemus portrays someone in darkness who is on a journey to the light of the world.
“Perform the miraculous signs…” The miracle that Jesus has done in John’s gospel so far was changing the water into wine at the Wedding at Cana. This seems to be a subtle clue from John that we should see a connection between the two stories.
3:3
Instead of replying to Nicodemus’ statement, Jesus changes the subject, "you must be born again.” The Greek word ἄνωθεν (anōthen) can mean "again" or "from above" (see 3:7 and 31 where the same Greek word is used). Most likely a double entendre is implied here. Making double references, or play on words, like this is one of John’s favorite literary techniques.
3:4
Nicodemus’ response to Jesus' statement is humorous. The reader is struck by how silly his question is. Like the steward at the wedding in 2:9, Nicodemus’ response reveals his lack of understanding. The reader finds this silly because in the prologue John has provided us with insider information about who Jesus is and God’s plan of salvation.
Even a first-time reader of John would know this. This split between what the reader knows and what Nicodemus does not know makes his response seem absurd. But this serves an important role. Our engagement with Nicodemus’ answer should stimulate us to think through Jesus’ teachings at a deeper level.
3:5 Water and the Spirit
The theme of water from the Wedding at Cana is reintroduced at this point. Instead of being connected with the “new wine” that Jesus created it is used in connection with the “new birth” of salvation in this passage. The references to “water and spirit” have been understood in a number of different ways:
1) Physical and spiritual birth. This interpretation is not very strong since both water and spirit” are part of a conditional clause, “unless” ( Greek ἐὰν μή, ean mh). Since both are part of the same clause it is best to read them as related terms.
2) Christian baptism. “Water and spirit” have been interpreted to teach that a person needs to believe and be baptized. This reading does not fit the context since Nicodemus would not have known about this practice.
3) Fulfillment of the prophecy in Ezekiel 36:25,26. “I will sprinkle you with pure water, and you will be clean from all your impurities. I will purify you from all your idols. I will give you a new heart, and I will put a new spirit within you. I will remove the heart of stone from your body and give you a heart of flesh.” (Ez 36:25-26 NET)
Nicodemus would have been very familiar with the OT, especially teachings concerning the Messiah. The connection between cleansing by water and the gift of a new spirit fit the context of Jesus’ discussion with Nicodemus.
3:8 The Wind and the Spirit
The verse contains an extended word-play on the Greek word πνεῦμα (pneuma). This word can be translated as wind, breath, human spirit (see Gen 2 where God breathes into Adam and he comes to life), or the Spirit (Holy Spirit). In verse 8 John includes a
number of references to this πνεῦμα (pneuma).
“The wind blows (verb from the same root) where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”
The spirit (of God) is mysterious. It is like the wind (same Greek word). You hear it but don't know where it comes from or where it is heading. Same with God’s Spirit. We don't understand where it came from (God’s plan?) or where the Spirit will blow us. Understanding God’s Spirit eludes human understanding. Neither Jesus nor the work of the Spirit in a person’s life, are easy to understand but demand a great deal of discernment and insight.
3:9,10 Teacher of Israel
As the “the teacher of Israel,” Nicodemus should have known this. He is pictured as the pinnacle of Jewish teaching and at the same time the embodiment of misunderstanding.
The story opened with Nicodemus approaching Jesus and making a power statement, “we know…” As the story progressed, Nicodemus’ ignorance is uncovered and Jesus’ superior teaching became apparent.
3:11 “Truly, I say to you, we…”
A narrative shift occurs in this verse. And this raises an interpretive question. Who is speaking in verses 11-16? Is John still relating the words of Jesus or is he interjecting a short section on salvation at this point?
It is interesting is to notice how different translations handle this passage. This is readily apparent in red-letter Bibles (they print the words of Jesus are in red). Some red-letter Bibles have the entire passage (down to verse 16) in red. Others switch to black letters at verse 11 and some make the shift somewhere in between. Once again, this is a literary trait of John’s. He likes to transition from retelling an event from the life of Christ to his theological teachings on that topic. Often in a very seamless manner.
3:14-15 Just as the serpent was lifted up in the wilderness.
In Numbers 21 God sent venomous serpents to bite the people of Israel because of their disobedience. At the same time, God directed Moses to provide a remedy. Moses was to place a placard of a servant on a pole. All they had to do was look at this and they would be healed from the snake bite.
In John’s gospel, the idea of being lifted up refers to both Jesus' death and his resurrection in John (see also John 8:28; 12:32).
Eternal life. In first-century Jewish theology, eternal life was something that God gave from above and would come in the future age. This is closely related to Jesus’ wordplay in 3:3 that you must be “born again/from above.” God is in the heavens above, we live on the world below. We live now but salvation is in the age to come.
3:16 For God so loved …
If there was a question about who was speaking in verses 11-15 (Jesus or John) that question is more or less settled in this verse.
A dramatic shift in verbal action occurs in this verse. It no longer fits the context of a discussion between Jesus and Nicodemus and takes an eternal perspective. This takes the reader out of the story and back to the eternal perspective with which John opened his Gospel. John accomplishes this by his use of aorist verbs (used to summarize what God has done) to refer to God’s actions of “sent,” “condemned,” and “saved.” (3:16-17)
God’s eternal plan is that whoever “believes” will not perish but is saved through God’s Son.
“Looking back at Jesus-history after the resurrection, the narrator takes us into the bosom of the Father in order to reveal the divine initiative and purpose in giving the monogenes, God’s one and only Son … There is therefore a progression in John’s storytelling from revelation about the Spirit (3:5-8) to revelation about the Son (3:13-15), to revelation about the Father (3:16-21). The narrator guides us into the very heart of the Triune God.” (Mark Stibbe, John [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993] p. 57-58).
Third Sunday of Lent A
Old Testament
Exodus 17:1-7
A repeated pattern runs through the book of Exodus. God leads Israel to some location only for the people of Israel to find that they are lacking some form of provision there. In most of these stories, Moses acts as an intermediary between the people and God, often because the people take their complaints straight to Moses. And finally, while God provided for his people he was also testing them while they were in the wilderness. At Marah, God provided them with sweet water to drink (15:25). When they reached Elim there were 12 springs of water with palm trees (15:27). When the people reached the wilderness of Sin (what an ominous name for a location) lacked meat to eat God provided quail (16:4ff). All of these themes are present in this Sunday’s reading as well.
17:1
This story opens with the people arriving at Rephidim “as the Lord commanded” (17:1). The crisis in this story is evident immediately, “there was no water to drink.” Unlike Marah, where there was water to drink but it was bitter there is no water at Rephidim.
17:2
The people then quarrel with Moses and demand that he give them water to drink. How this story should be understood is framed by Moses’ response. Their argument is not with him but with God. “Why do you quarrel with me? Why do you test the LORD?” (17:2 NRSV)
From one perspective their complaint is justified. As their appointed leader, Moses has been directing the people where to go. At the same time, the reader knows that God has been instructing Moses where to lead the people. Their complaints against Moses reveals a fundamental issue. They do not perceive that God is the one leading them but instead take their complaints to the person they can see and touch, Moses. Moses, however, is only responsible to be faithful to what God has commanded. Their challenging Moses’ leadership betrays a more fundamental issue. Their failure to trust God’s provision.
The two verbs that Moses used in his reply are central to the message of this story and will be given additional significance in 17:7. They are also related to the question about whether the people perceive Moses or God as their leader (see above). The first verb “quarrel” or “contend” is applied to their complaints against Moses. “Why do you contend with me?” The verb for “quarrel” ( Hebrew: רוּב, riv) will be used later as part of the name that Israel will call that location: Meribah (מְרִיבָה, me-riv-ah) which means ‘quarreling’ (17:7). The second verb “test” gets at the root of the problem. The people were “testing” God. The verb for “test” is נָסָה (nāsāh) will be applied to naming the place Massah (מַסָּה, massāh).
17:3 “To kill us…”
Despite Moses’ rebuking the people for “testing” the Lord their complaints only get stronger. Their complaints against Moses (and God) follows a repeated narrative pattern in Exodus (see 14:11, 16:3).
17:4 “Moses cried out to the LORD”
One of the dominant traits painted of Moses during Israel’s 40 years in the wilderness is that when faced with a challenging situation he takes it straight to God in prayer (see Exodus 15:25; 24:15; 32:30 and Numbers 11:2,11; 12:11; 14:13ff). This pattern indicates two important points. First, Moses was a human being like anyone else. He had no special powers or abilities. Everything he accomplished was done by following God’s directions and relying on God to accomplish those goals. Second, the measure of Moses’ leadership is not based on numbers or accomplishments. Remember, only two of the people that Moses lead out of Egypt will make it to the promised land. And even Moses will not enter the promised land. If we were to judge his success as a leader that would be a horrible track record. Instead, we measure Moses’ role as a leader based on his faithfulness and trust in God. As the great English missionary, William Carey preached “Expect great things from God, attempt great things for God!”
17:5
In 17:1 the people were commanded by God to depart Sin and go to Rephidim. We now have God’s second command in this passage.
Moses is instructed to go before the people with the staff that he struck the Nile with. This creates an interesting intertextual connection. When Moses struck the Nile it resulted in a plague on Egypt. The reference to this specific staff sets up the reader to think that some form of judgment is coming. However, in this instance, the result will be just the opposite.
17:6
Instead of striking a rock at Rephidim Moses is directed to go to a rock at Horeb. The text does not indicate the distance between these locations. They may be next to each other or within walking distance. The way the “rock at Horeb” is referred to in the text indicates that it may have been a fairly prominent geographic feature. Horeb is also the region where Moses first met God (Ex. 3:1).
Moses once again follows God’s instructions. He goes to the rock God specified and struck the rock with the staff. When he struck the Nile (Ex. 7:17, 20) with this staff, Egypt’s water supply was defiled and undrinkable. Now the opposite happens, God provides potable water where there was none.
17:7
The story closes with this location a ceremonial naming. The naming of this location is meant to serve as a memorial to remind Israel to trust in the Lord and not to test him with unbelief.
The names given to this location are taken from the verbs that Moses used to correct the people in 17:3. Massah (מַסָּה, massah) is related to the verb for ‘testing’ or ‘proving’ ) נָסָה, nāsāh). Meribah (מְרִיבָה, merivah) is related to ‘quarreling’ or ‘stiving’ (רוּב, riv). Lest the readers miss the connection, the middle of the verse explains the connection of these names to Moses’ reply.
Finally, the heart of the issue is mentioned. Israel’s failure was not because they complained to Moses or found themselves in inhospitable circumstances. It was because they questioned, “Is the LORD among us or now?” The memorial naming of this location served its purpose and entered into the national memory of Israel. The psalmist writes: “For he is our God, and we are the people of his pasture, and the sheep of his hand. Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts, as at Meribah, as on the day at Massah in the wilderness.” Psalm 95:7-8 (ESV)
History of Interpretation
Because the story of Massah and Meribah in Exodus 17.1-7 is so interesting, it is not surprising that Jewish Rabbis found this an interesting text. The Talmud contains an interesting interpretation of this text. The rock that Moses struck in this passage would follow Israel. From then on, as Israel wandered in the wilderness this rock would follow them and provide water during their 40-year journey.
“So the well, which was with Israel in the wilderness, was like a rock of the size of a k'bara, and was oozing out and rising as from the mouth of this flask, travelling with them up the mountains and going down with them to the valleys. Wherever Israel encamped it encamped opposite them before the door of the Tabernacle.” Tosefta Sukkah 3.11 (https://www.sefaria.org/Tosefta_Sukkah.3?lang=bi This quote is about 3/4 of the way down the page)
This passage from the Talmud appears to represent a Jewish interpretation that Paul referred to in 1 Corinthians 10:4. In that passage, Paul wrote, “for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them…” (1 Corinthians 10:4 NASB)
Philo interpreted this story allegorically. According to him, the rock Moses struck supplied something much more important than physical water that satisfied the body. It was the wisdom of God. “For the flinty rock is the wisdom of God, which he marked off the highest and chiefest from his powers, and from which He satisfies the thirsty souls that love of God.” Philo, in Loeb Classical Library, No. 226 (Harvard University Press, 1929) 1.279.
Old Testament
Exodus 17:1-7
A repeated pattern runs through the book of Exodus. God leads Israel to some location only for the people of Israel to find that they are lacking some form of provision there. In most of these stories, Moses acts as an intermediary between the people and God, often because the people take their complaints straight to Moses. And finally, while God provided for his people he was also testing them while they were in the wilderness. At Marah, God provided them with sweet water to drink (15:25). When they reached Elim there were 12 springs of water with palm trees (15:27). When the people reached the wilderness of Sin (what an ominous name for a location) lacked meat to eat God provided quail (16:4ff). All of these themes are present in this Sunday’s reading as well.
17:1
This story opens with the people arriving at Rephidim “as the Lord commanded” (17:1). The crisis in this story is evident immediately, “there was no water to drink.” Unlike Marah, where there was water to drink but it was bitter there is no water at Rephidim.
17:2
The people then quarrel with Moses and demand that he give them water to drink. How this story should be understood is framed by Moses’ response. Their argument is not with him but with God. “Why do you quarrel with me? Why do you test the LORD?” (17:2 NRSV)
From one perspective their complaint is justified. As their appointed leader, Moses has been directing the people where to go. At the same time, the reader knows that God has been instructing Moses where to lead the people. Their complaints against Moses reveals a fundamental issue. They do not perceive that God is the one leading them but instead take their complaints to the person they can see and touch, Moses. Moses, however, is only responsible to be faithful to what God has commanded. Their challenging Moses’ leadership betrays a more fundamental issue. Their failure to trust God’s provision.
The two verbs that Moses used in his reply are central to the message of this story and will be given additional significance in 17:7. They are also related to the question about whether the people perceive Moses or God as their leader (see above). The first verb “quarrel” or “contend” is applied to their complaints against Moses. “Why do you contend with me?” The verb for “quarrel” ( Hebrew: רוּב, riv) will be used later as part of the name that Israel will call that location: Meribah (מְרִיבָה, me-riv-ah) which means ‘quarreling’ (17:7). The second verb “test” gets at the root of the problem. The people were “testing” God. The verb for “test” is נָסָה (nāsāh) will be applied to naming the place Massah (מַסָּה, massāh).
17:3 “To kill us…”
Despite Moses’ rebuking the people for “testing” the Lord their complaints only get stronger. Their complaints against Moses (and God) follows a repeated narrative pattern in Exodus (see 14:11, 16:3).
17:4 “Moses cried out to the LORD”
One of the dominant traits painted of Moses during Israel’s 40 years in the wilderness is that when faced with a challenging situation he takes it straight to God in prayer (see Exodus 15:25; 24:15; 32:30 and Numbers 11:2,11; 12:11; 14:13ff). This pattern indicates two important points. First, Moses was a human being like anyone else. He had no special powers or abilities. Everything he accomplished was done by following God’s directions and relying on God to accomplish those goals. Second, the measure of Moses’ leadership is not based on numbers or accomplishments. Remember, only two of the people that Moses lead out of Egypt will make it to the promised land. And even Moses will not enter the promised land. If we were to judge his success as a leader that would be a horrible track record. Instead, we measure Moses’ role as a leader based on his faithfulness and trust in God. As the great English missionary, William Carey preached “Expect great things from God, attempt great things for God!”
17:5
In 17:1 the people were commanded by God to depart Sin and go to Rephidim. We now have God’s second command in this passage.
Moses is instructed to go before the people with the staff that he struck the Nile with. This creates an interesting intertextual connection. When Moses struck the Nile it resulted in a plague on Egypt. The reference to this specific staff sets up the reader to think that some form of judgment is coming. However, in this instance, the result will be just the opposite.
17:6
Instead of striking a rock at Rephidim Moses is directed to go to a rock at Horeb. The text does not indicate the distance between these locations. They may be next to each other or within walking distance. The way the “rock at Horeb” is referred to in the text indicates that it may have been a fairly prominent geographic feature. Horeb is also the region where Moses first met God (Ex. 3:1).
Moses once again follows God’s instructions. He goes to the rock God specified and struck the rock with the staff. When he struck the Nile (Ex. 7:17, 20) with this staff, Egypt’s water supply was defiled and undrinkable. Now the opposite happens, God provides potable water where there was none.
17:7
The story closes with this location a ceremonial naming. The naming of this location is meant to serve as a memorial to remind Israel to trust in the Lord and not to test him with unbelief.
The names given to this location are taken from the verbs that Moses used to correct the people in 17:3. Massah (מַסָּה, massah) is related to the verb for ‘testing’ or ‘proving’ ) נָסָה, nāsāh). Meribah (מְרִיבָה, merivah) is related to ‘quarreling’ or ‘stiving’ (רוּב, riv). Lest the readers miss the connection, the middle of the verse explains the connection of these names to Moses’ reply.
Finally, the heart of the issue is mentioned. Israel’s failure was not because they complained to Moses or found themselves in inhospitable circumstances. It was because they questioned, “Is the LORD among us or now?” The memorial naming of this location served its purpose and entered into the national memory of Israel. The psalmist writes: “For he is our God, and we are the people of his pasture, and the sheep of his hand. Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts, as at Meribah, as on the day at Massah in the wilderness.” Psalm 95:7-8 (ESV)
History of Interpretation
Because the story of Massah and Meribah in Exodus 17.1-7 is so interesting, it is not surprising that Jewish Rabbis found this an interesting text. The Talmud contains an interesting interpretation of this text. The rock that Moses struck in this passage would follow Israel. From then on, as Israel wandered in the wilderness this rock would follow them and provide water during their 40-year journey.
“So the well, which was with Israel in the wilderness, was like a rock of the size of a k'bara, and was oozing out and rising as from the mouth of this flask, travelling with them up the mountains and going down with them to the valleys. Wherever Israel encamped it encamped opposite them before the door of the Tabernacle.” Tosefta Sukkah 3.11 (https://www.sefaria.org/Tosefta_Sukkah.3?lang=bi This quote is about 3/4 of the way down the page)
This passage from the Talmud appears to represent a Jewish interpretation that Paul referred to in 1 Corinthians 10:4. In that passage, Paul wrote, “for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them…” (1 Corinthians 10:4 NASB)
Philo interpreted this story allegorically. According to him, the rock Moses struck supplied something much more important than physical water that satisfied the body. It was the wisdom of God. “For the flinty rock is the wisdom of God, which he marked off the highest and chiefest from his powers, and from which He satisfies the thirsty souls that love of God.” Philo, in Loeb Classical Library, No. 226 (Harvard University Press, 1929) 1.279.
Third Sunday of Lent A
Psalm 95
Psalm 95 breaks down into two sections. Verses 1-7 praise God and call us to worship him. Verses 8-11 employ the story from Exodus 17 when Israel tested God at Meribah and Massah as a warning. We must take care that we do not harden our hearts against the Lord. This section of the Psalm is written in the form of an address or warning from God.
95:1-7
The first section of the Psalm calls us to enter into a joyful celebration of God being our Lord. God is to be praised because of the greatness of creation and he is the Lord over all other gods (95:3).
In verse one, the psalmist calls the worshipper to praise “the rock of our salvation.” The significance of this phrase will be developed in the second half of the Psalm. In that section, the psalmist will remind the worshipper about the story of Moses striking the rock at Horeb (Exodus 17). The “rock of our salvation” was also an appellation for God, “They remembered that God was their rock, the Most High God their redeemer.” 78:35 (ESV)
95:7
The use of ‘today’ (יוֹם, yom) echos the frequent use of this word in the book of Deuteronomy (see: Deut 4:40; 5:3; 6:6; 7:11). The use of “today” creates a blend between the actions of Israel in the past and the worshipper in the present. The past is a living reminder to those in the present not to follow their failure.
“Today, if only you would obey him.” (NET) also marks the transition from praising God in verses 1-7 to a poetic reminder of Israel’s failure at Meribah and Massah.
95:8-11 Meribah and Massah
95:8
This very preserves a very early interpretation and reading of the story from Exodus 17:1-7. At the very latest, a safe dating of this Psalm would be prior to 540 BC, when the book of Psalms was collected and organized after the Babylonian captivity. In this sense, this Psalm preserves not only an interpretation of the story of Meribah and Massah but also a sermon from that era in the form of a hymn.
Massah and Meribah are called to mind as a prime example of when Israel did not trust God but put him to the test in the wilderness. The Psalmist uses language from the book of Deuteronomy throughout this section. For example, in 95:7b the Psalmist says “Listen to his voice.” This command is similar to the use the verb שָׁמַע (shama’, to listen, hear, the hear with interest) in the book of Deuteronomy (see: 3:26, 4:1, 10, 30, 36, 5:1, 27; 6:3,4; 7:17; 9:1, etc.).
The main focus of this section is Israel’s failure to trust God. Their forefathers failed to trust that God had led them to Rephidim and would provide for them.
This Psalm concludes on a heavy note, “Therefore I swore in my wrath ‘They shall not enter my rest.’” This rest can refer to “resting” or “being quiet.” Often it is used to speak about a “resting place.” If the second meaning is intended then it refers to the fact that the generation Moses was leading would not enter the promised land. This gives the Psalm a dramatic ending. An entire generation wandered in the wilderness and died before God allowed Israel to enter the promised land.
Many lectionary schedules read from Psalm 95:8 during Lent in an allegorical manner. “Do not harden your hearts, as at Meribah, as on the day at Massah in the wilderness!” (95:8) is read as an exhortation to break up the callous fibers of our hearts. Or to put it another way. Unlike ancient Israel that put God to the test when there was no water at Meribah, we should not question God when we give up coffee (yikes!) for Lent.
Psalm 95
Psalm 95 breaks down into two sections. Verses 1-7 praise God and call us to worship him. Verses 8-11 employ the story from Exodus 17 when Israel tested God at Meribah and Massah as a warning. We must take care that we do not harden our hearts against the Lord. This section of the Psalm is written in the form of an address or warning from God.
95:1-7
The first section of the Psalm calls us to enter into a joyful celebration of God being our Lord. God is to be praised because of the greatness of creation and he is the Lord over all other gods (95:3).
In verse one, the psalmist calls the worshipper to praise “the rock of our salvation.” The significance of this phrase will be developed in the second half of the Psalm. In that section, the psalmist will remind the worshipper about the story of Moses striking the rock at Horeb (Exodus 17). The “rock of our salvation” was also an appellation for God, “They remembered that God was their rock, the Most High God their redeemer.” 78:35 (ESV)
95:7
The use of ‘today’ (יוֹם, yom) echos the frequent use of this word in the book of Deuteronomy (see: Deut 4:40; 5:3; 6:6; 7:11). The use of “today” creates a blend between the actions of Israel in the past and the worshipper in the present. The past is a living reminder to those in the present not to follow their failure.
“Today, if only you would obey him.” (NET) also marks the transition from praising God in verses 1-7 to a poetic reminder of Israel’s failure at Meribah and Massah.
95:8-11 Meribah and Massah
95:8
This very preserves a very early interpretation and reading of the story from Exodus 17:1-7. At the very latest, a safe dating of this Psalm would be prior to 540 BC, when the book of Psalms was collected and organized after the Babylonian captivity. In this sense, this Psalm preserves not only an interpretation of the story of Meribah and Massah but also a sermon from that era in the form of a hymn.
Massah and Meribah are called to mind as a prime example of when Israel did not trust God but put him to the test in the wilderness. The Psalmist uses language from the book of Deuteronomy throughout this section. For example, in 95:7b the Psalmist says “Listen to his voice.” This command is similar to the use the verb שָׁמַע (shama’, to listen, hear, the hear with interest) in the book of Deuteronomy (see: 3:26, 4:1, 10, 30, 36, 5:1, 27; 6:3,4; 7:17; 9:1, etc.).
The main focus of this section is Israel’s failure to trust God. Their forefathers failed to trust that God had led them to Rephidim and would provide for them.
This Psalm concludes on a heavy note, “Therefore I swore in my wrath ‘They shall not enter my rest.’” This rest can refer to “resting” or “being quiet.” Often it is used to speak about a “resting place.” If the second meaning is intended then it refers to the fact that the generation Moses was leading would not enter the promised land. This gives the Psalm a dramatic ending. An entire generation wandered in the wilderness and died before God allowed Israel to enter the promised land.
Many lectionary schedules read from Psalm 95:8 during Lent in an allegorical manner. “Do not harden your hearts, as at Meribah, as on the day at Massah in the wilderness!” (95:8) is read as an exhortation to break up the callous fibers of our hearts. Or to put it another way. Unlike ancient Israel that put God to the test when there was no water at Meribah, we should not question God when we give up coffee (yikes!) for Lent.
Third Sunday of Lent A
Epistle
Romans 1:16-32
In classical Greco-Roman letters, the propositio was considered the most important part of a letter’s content. In the propositio the author would lay out the big idea of what they want the reader to take away from their letter.
1:16-17
In verses 16-17, Paul lays out the propositio for his epistle to the Romans. He opens his statement with “For I am not ashamed…” (1:16). This could be interpreted as “I have bold confidence …” but by stating it in the negative it removes and effort or contribution that Paul is making. In other words, this isn’t about Paul but about the “power of God.” To “not be ashamed” may also reflect Paul’s familiarity with some of the oral teaching of Jesus preserved in the church (see Luke 9:26 where Paul’s co-worker inscribed this teaching in his account of Jesus’ life).
Paul is not ashamed of the gospel. Why? Because it is God’s power to save anyone and everyone. It is open to both Jew and Greek. The power of the gospel does not lie in eloquent words that the preacher might use or in lofty wisdom (see 1 Corinthians 1-2). Rather the power of the gospel lies in the fact that when someone believes in the message of the gospel God acts within their life to save them. The nature of this salvation will be explained throughout the rest of the letter.
The idea of the ‘gospel’ (Gk. εὐαγγέλιον, euangelion) is a common idea in the New Testament. In the Greek translation of the Old Testament, this term was used 23 times as well. Isaiah 40 is an example of a passage that stands behind how the authors of the New Testament conceived of the “good news.”
Isa 40:9 Go on up to a high mountain,
O Zion, herald of good news;
lift up your voice with strength,
O Jerusalem, herald of good news;
lift it up, fear not;
say to the cities of Judah,
“Behold your God!” (ESV)
Isa 40:9 Ἐπ᾿ ὄρος ὑψηλὸν ἀνάβηθι, ὁ εὐαγγελιζόμενος Σειών·
ὕψωσον τῇ ἰσχύι τὴν φωνήν σου,
ὁ εὐαγγελιζόμενος Ἰερουσαλήμ·
ὑψώσατε, μὴ φοβεῖσθε·
εἰπὸν ταῖς πόλεσιν Ἰούδα
Ἰδοὺ ὁ θεὸς ὑμῶν.
When the authors of the New Testament used the term ‘good news’ (εὐαγγέλιον, euangelion) it was linked to the idea that Jesus was the coming Messiah. The ‘good news’ was that God has saved us through the work of his Son (the Messiah) on the cross. This is the power of God for salvation.
This idea of “good news” was not only appropriated by the church but by the Roman Empire as well. Caesar Augustus was viewed by many as a ‘messianic’ figure. In several inscriptions, he was even given the title “the god Augustus.” Because Augustus ushered in a period of peace and prosperity in the Roman Empire many viewed him as a “savior of the world.”
The church proclaimed that the “good news” against this cultural backdrop. The “good news” was not about Caesar but Jesus Christ. The church’s message of the “good news” turned the accepted values associated with this term on their head. Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection have ushered in the dawn of the Kingdom of God (vs. the Roman Empire).
Instead of sitting on the throne in Rome, this Messianic King was a homeless, wandering preacher, and miracle worker. Third, instead of holding a position of honor and power (as Caesar did on the throne in Rome) Jesus died shamefully. Beaten, mocked, hanging naked on a cross. And finally, Jesus’ kingdom is not a political or national kingdom but consists of all who believe that he is the Savior of the world. In this way, the “good news” Paul preached was a direct challenge to the ideology of the Roman Empire.
In the next 16 chapters of this letter, Paul will develop the thesis in the propositio from several different lines of argument.
1:18-21
Verse 18 starts the main body of Paul’s letter to the Romans. From verse 18 until the end of chapter 4 this “good news” will be contrasted with the sinful state of mankind.
Paul opens this section by appealing to the concept of natural revelation. God has revealed himself from heaven and made himself known to humanity (1:18-19). As a result, every single person is without excuse because his attributes have been clearly revealed in creation (1:20). The problem is that we fail to recognize God and as a result, our hearts and minds are darkened.
Paul could be drawing his argument from Wisdom 13:1ff. “Surely vain are all men by nature, who are ignorant of God, and could not out of the good things that are seen know him that is: neither by considering the works did they acknowledge the workmaster …” (KJV Apocrypha)
1:22-32
This section can be outlined around a threefold structure. The people ‘“exchanged” what they should have known about God and as a result “God gave them over…”
1:23 ‘exchanged the glory of the immortal God’
1:24 ‘God gave them over to impure desires…’
1:25 ‘exchanged the truth of God’
1:26 ‘God gave them over to passions without honor’
1:28 ‘did not see fit to acknowledge God’
1:28b ‘God gave them over to a worthless mind’
1:22-23
James Dunn thinks that the story of Adam lies behind much of Paul’s argument in this passage. Satan tempted Adam and Eve in the garden with fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He claimed that this would make them wise. Paul could be alluding to this when he wrote: “claiming to be wise they became fools.” (1:22) As a result, Adam and Eve were cast out of the garden and away from the presence of God. The worst decision in human history. The introduction of Adam into Paul’s argument at this point also foreshadows his use of Adam’s story later in the letter (Romans 5:11-20).
As a result, mankind no longer knew or worshipped God but replaced God with something else. Once again, Paul’s argument follows the book of Wisdom, “But for the foolish devices of their wickedness, wherewith being deceived they worshipped serpents void of reason, and vile beasts…” (Wisdom 11:15)
In response, God gave them over to various passions. The list of vices, in particular, the sexual ones, that Paul lists reflect a Jewish view of how the Gentile world lived and behaved.
The central argument Paul is making throughout 1:18-32 is not about the idolatry or sexual practices that people engage in. Rather, it is that people refuse to acknowledge God as God. And they exchange the worship of God for something else (1:28). This is why all of humanity is under judgment (1:18) and in need of salvation which is only found in the gospel (1:16-17).
For a very thorough discussion of this passage see: James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1-8, vol 38a in Word Biblical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988) p 51-76.
Epistle
Romans 1:16-32
In classical Greco-Roman letters, the propositio was considered the most important part of a letter’s content. In the propositio the author would lay out the big idea of what they want the reader to take away from their letter.
1:16-17
In verses 16-17, Paul lays out the propositio for his epistle to the Romans. He opens his statement with “For I am not ashamed…” (1:16). This could be interpreted as “I have bold confidence …” but by stating it in the negative it removes and effort or contribution that Paul is making. In other words, this isn’t about Paul but about the “power of God.” To “not be ashamed” may also reflect Paul’s familiarity with some of the oral teaching of Jesus preserved in the church (see Luke 9:26 where Paul’s co-worker inscribed this teaching in his account of Jesus’ life).
Paul is not ashamed of the gospel. Why? Because it is God’s power to save anyone and everyone. It is open to both Jew and Greek. The power of the gospel does not lie in eloquent words that the preacher might use or in lofty wisdom (see 1 Corinthians 1-2). Rather the power of the gospel lies in the fact that when someone believes in the message of the gospel God acts within their life to save them. The nature of this salvation will be explained throughout the rest of the letter.
The idea of the ‘gospel’ (Gk. εὐαγγέλιον, euangelion) is a common idea in the New Testament. In the Greek translation of the Old Testament, this term was used 23 times as well. Isaiah 40 is an example of a passage that stands behind how the authors of the New Testament conceived of the “good news.”
Isa 40:9 Go on up to a high mountain,
O Zion, herald of good news;
lift up your voice with strength,
O Jerusalem, herald of good news;
lift it up, fear not;
say to the cities of Judah,
“Behold your God!” (ESV)
Isa 40:9 Ἐπ᾿ ὄρος ὑψηλὸν ἀνάβηθι, ὁ εὐαγγελιζόμενος Σειών·
ὕψωσον τῇ ἰσχύι τὴν φωνήν σου,
ὁ εὐαγγελιζόμενος Ἰερουσαλήμ·
ὑψώσατε, μὴ φοβεῖσθε·
εἰπὸν ταῖς πόλεσιν Ἰούδα
Ἰδοὺ ὁ θεὸς ὑμῶν.
When the authors of the New Testament used the term ‘good news’ (εὐαγγέλιον, euangelion) it was linked to the idea that Jesus was the coming Messiah. The ‘good news’ was that God has saved us through the work of his Son (the Messiah) on the cross. This is the power of God for salvation.
This idea of “good news” was not only appropriated by the church but by the Roman Empire as well. Caesar Augustus was viewed by many as a ‘messianic’ figure. In several inscriptions, he was even given the title “the god Augustus.” Because Augustus ushered in a period of peace and prosperity in the Roman Empire many viewed him as a “savior of the world.”
The church proclaimed that the “good news” against this cultural backdrop. The “good news” was not about Caesar but Jesus Christ. The church’s message of the “good news” turned the accepted values associated with this term on their head. Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection have ushered in the dawn of the Kingdom of God (vs. the Roman Empire).
Instead of sitting on the throne in Rome, this Messianic King was a homeless, wandering preacher, and miracle worker. Third, instead of holding a position of honor and power (as Caesar did on the throne in Rome) Jesus died shamefully. Beaten, mocked, hanging naked on a cross. And finally, Jesus’ kingdom is not a political or national kingdom but consists of all who believe that he is the Savior of the world. In this way, the “good news” Paul preached was a direct challenge to the ideology of the Roman Empire.
In the next 16 chapters of this letter, Paul will develop the thesis in the propositio from several different lines of argument.
1:18-21
Verse 18 starts the main body of Paul’s letter to the Romans. From verse 18 until the end of chapter 4 this “good news” will be contrasted with the sinful state of mankind.
Paul opens this section by appealing to the concept of natural revelation. God has revealed himself from heaven and made himself known to humanity (1:18-19). As a result, every single person is without excuse because his attributes have been clearly revealed in creation (1:20). The problem is that we fail to recognize God and as a result, our hearts and minds are darkened.
Paul could be drawing his argument from Wisdom 13:1ff. “Surely vain are all men by nature, who are ignorant of God, and could not out of the good things that are seen know him that is: neither by considering the works did they acknowledge the workmaster …” (KJV Apocrypha)
1:22-32
This section can be outlined around a threefold structure. The people ‘“exchanged” what they should have known about God and as a result “God gave them over…”
1:23 ‘exchanged the glory of the immortal God’
1:24 ‘God gave them over to impure desires…’
1:25 ‘exchanged the truth of God’
1:26 ‘God gave them over to passions without honor’
1:28 ‘did not see fit to acknowledge God’
1:28b ‘God gave them over to a worthless mind’
1:22-23
James Dunn thinks that the story of Adam lies behind much of Paul’s argument in this passage. Satan tempted Adam and Eve in the garden with fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He claimed that this would make them wise. Paul could be alluding to this when he wrote: “claiming to be wise they became fools.” (1:22) As a result, Adam and Eve were cast out of the garden and away from the presence of God. The worst decision in human history. The introduction of Adam into Paul’s argument at this point also foreshadows his use of Adam’s story later in the letter (Romans 5:11-20).
As a result, mankind no longer knew or worshipped God but replaced God with something else. Once again, Paul’s argument follows the book of Wisdom, “But for the foolish devices of their wickedness, wherewith being deceived they worshipped serpents void of reason, and vile beasts…” (Wisdom 11:15)
In response, God gave them over to various passions. The list of vices, in particular, the sexual ones, that Paul lists reflect a Jewish view of how the Gentile world lived and behaved.
The central argument Paul is making throughout 1:18-32 is not about the idolatry or sexual practices that people engage in. Rather, it is that people refuse to acknowledge God as God. And they exchange the worship of God for something else (1:28). This is why all of humanity is under judgment (1:18) and in need of salvation which is only found in the gospel (1:16-17).
For a very thorough discussion of this passage see: James D. G. Dunn, Romans 1-8, vol 38a in Word Biblical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988) p 51-76.
Third Sunday of Lent A
Gospel
John 4:5-26 (27-38) 39-42
Because women in biblical times were subordinate to men in power and dependent on them, the women whose portraits emerge in the Bible are often those who display unusual courage by rising above conventional roles. Paragons of courage include Jochebed (mother of Moses), Deborah, Jael, Ruth, Esther, Abigail (1 Sam 25) and Mary the mother of Jesus.
Role of Women in John
The woman at the well is the second major character we encounter in John’s gospel. The first major character is Nicodemus in John chapter 3. These two characters function as a comparison and contrast between each other and we learn a great deal about the gospel through both of them.
What is interesting is how positively women are portrayed in John’s gospel. These include:
Mary and Martha 11:1-44, 12:1-8
Women at the cross 19:25-27
Mary Magdalene 10:1-3, 11-18
Background on Samaritans
Before jumping into the story of the woman at the well it is helpful to understand something about the Samaritans and their relationship to their Jewish neighbors.
The Samaritans claimed to be the descendants of the 10 northern tribes of Israel.
When Assyria invaded Israel in 722 B.C. it took the majority of the people off into captivity. Only a small group of Israelites were left behind. Mainly those the Assyrians considered to be of little value: the poor, destitute, and handicapped. The Assyrians resettled the land of Israel with prisoners and colonists who intermarried with the few Israelites that were left behind. When these Assyrian settlers were attacked by lions and bees they accepted a version of Judaism to appease the god of that land. (see 2 Kings 17; Josephus, Antiquities, 9:277-291) Their name, Samaritan, comes from the verb, “to keep" (ie., keep the faith). They saw themselves as the true preservers of Moses’ teachings and revelation.
The Samaritan faith shared many similarities with the Jewish faith. They worshipped much like the Jews with similar feasts and laws. Their scriptures included the Pentateuch and the book of Joshua.
During the Maccabean revolt, John Hyrcanus invaded Samaria and destroyed their temple on Mt. Gerizim (128 B.C.). The Samaritans were not permitted to rebuild their temple and its ruins were visible during Jesus’ day.
John chapters 2-4
These three chapters in John are a cohesive sub-section in John’s gospel. There are a number of themes that bind this section together. These include worship, water, spirit, and marriage.
This sub-section in John opens with the story of the wedding at Cana in chapter 2. While this story is about Jesus turning water into wine it also reveals that Jesus is the eschatological prophet who will provide the heavenly feast with wine and food. What is interesting is that the two main characters are missing. The bride and groom are conspicuously absent.
In chapter 3, Nicodemus comes to Jesus at night. He is a highly respected man and a member of the Sanhedrin. During his interaction with Jesus, his ignorance and lack of understanding are revealed.
After the story of Nicodemus, John inserts an interesting side note from the life of John the Baptist. When John’s disciples ask him about Jesus John replies that he is not the Messiah. Like the friend of the bridegroom John is full of joy because he has stood and heard Jesus, the groom.
This brings us to chapter 4 where we meet a very interesting woman. By giving so much narrative space to Nicodemus and the Samaritan woman John sets up a contrast between the two characters. Just about every aspect of their two stories stand in stark contrast to each other.
Gospel
John 4:5-26 (27-38) 39-42
Because women in biblical times were subordinate to men in power and dependent on them, the women whose portraits emerge in the Bible are often those who display unusual courage by rising above conventional roles. Paragons of courage include Jochebed (mother of Moses), Deborah, Jael, Ruth, Esther, Abigail (1 Sam 25) and Mary the mother of Jesus.
Role of Women in John
The woman at the well is the second major character we encounter in John’s gospel. The first major character is Nicodemus in John chapter 3. These two characters function as a comparison and contrast between each other and we learn a great deal about the gospel through both of them.
What is interesting is how positively women are portrayed in John’s gospel. These include:
Mary and Martha 11:1-44, 12:1-8
Women at the cross 19:25-27
Mary Magdalene 10:1-3, 11-18
Background on Samaritans
Before jumping into the story of the woman at the well it is helpful to understand something about the Samaritans and their relationship to their Jewish neighbors.
The Samaritans claimed to be the descendants of the 10 northern tribes of Israel.
When Assyria invaded Israel in 722 B.C. it took the majority of the people off into captivity. Only a small group of Israelites were left behind. Mainly those the Assyrians considered to be of little value: the poor, destitute, and handicapped. The Assyrians resettled the land of Israel with prisoners and colonists who intermarried with the few Israelites that were left behind. When these Assyrian settlers were attacked by lions and bees they accepted a version of Judaism to appease the god of that land. (see 2 Kings 17; Josephus, Antiquities, 9:277-291) Their name, Samaritan, comes from the verb, “to keep" (ie., keep the faith). They saw themselves as the true preservers of Moses’ teachings and revelation.
The Samaritan faith shared many similarities with the Jewish faith. They worshipped much like the Jews with similar feasts and laws. Their scriptures included the Pentateuch and the book of Joshua.
During the Maccabean revolt, John Hyrcanus invaded Samaria and destroyed their temple on Mt. Gerizim (128 B.C.). The Samaritans were not permitted to rebuild their temple and its ruins were visible during Jesus’ day.
John chapters 2-4
These three chapters in John are a cohesive sub-section in John’s gospel. There are a number of themes that bind this section together. These include worship, water, spirit, and marriage.
This sub-section in John opens with the story of the wedding at Cana in chapter 2. While this story is about Jesus turning water into wine it also reveals that Jesus is the eschatological prophet who will provide the heavenly feast with wine and food. What is interesting is that the two main characters are missing. The bride and groom are conspicuously absent.
In chapter 3, Nicodemus comes to Jesus at night. He is a highly respected man and a member of the Sanhedrin. During his interaction with Jesus, his ignorance and lack of understanding are revealed.
After the story of Nicodemus, John inserts an interesting side note from the life of John the Baptist. When John’s disciples ask him about Jesus John replies that he is not the Messiah. Like the friend of the bridegroom John is full of joy because he has stood and heard Jesus, the groom.
This brings us to chapter 4 where we meet a very interesting woman. By giving so much narrative space to Nicodemus and the Samaritan woman John sets up a contrast between the two characters. Just about every aspect of their two stories stand in stark contrast to each other.
The contrast between the two highlights John’s theology that Jesus is the Son of God, the light that comes into the world, and that anyone who believes in him is given the right to become a child of God.
There are several interesting aspects of dialogue in these two stories. Nicodemus’ character experiences a gradual decline in his interaction with Jesus. When he first approaches Jesus he states “we know…” (3:2). At the end of the story, Jesus asks him “Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things?” (3:10)
By contrast, the woman starts from a position of ignorance (who is the strange man?) and rude to Jesus (4:10). As her story progresses gradually comes to perceive more about who Jesus is (progression of names and the questions she asks). At the very end her encounter with Jesus she runs off and brings the entire village to Jesus. In John’s gospel, she brings more people to Jesus than any other character.
On a side note: Fortunately for Nicodemus, John was not done with him as a character. Later he will make a partial defense for Jesus before the Sanhedrin. And at Jesus’ crucifixion, he will ask Pilate for his body so that he might bury him. One of only a handful of people who remained loyal to Jesus at the very end.
Old Testament Themes in the story of the Samaritan Woman
The plot structure of the story of the Samaritan Woman follows the genre of engagement stories in the Old Testament and Rabbinic literature. In Jewish literature, there are several betrothal stories. These include the servant finding a wife for Isaac, Jacob meeting his wives (Gen 29:1-20), Moses meeting this wife, and Tobit meeting Sarah (see the book of Tobit). The plot of these stories is as follows:
1) Bridegroom travels to a foreign land
2) He meets a girl(s) at a well
3) Someone gets water from the well
4) The woman runs into the village to announce who she has met
5) The man and woman are engaged
This same plot structure is reflected in John 4. Jesus the bridegroom (3:39) travels to Samaria (4:4,9). There he meets the woman at the well. She draws water for him. Then after their discussion, she runs to the village to tell them about Jesus. While they do not end up getting betrothed, this idea is alluded to in two different ways.
First, in the story of the wedding at Cana, the bride and groom are conspicuously absent. In this story, Jesus and the Samaritan woman take the roles of the bride and groom from a narrative plot perspective.
As the bride, she brings baggage with her. She has been married five times and is currently living with a different man. Like Sarah, in the book of Tobit, she has had six men in her life and Jesus is the seventh (like Tobit is for Sarah). The number seven was viewed as a symbol of perfection or completion. Jesus is the man who brings salvation and wholeness to her life. (v. 22). The surprise is that she is not Jewish, or a man, but a Samaritan and with a history.
For more on the narrative structure and elements in this story see: Mark W. Stibbe, John, (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993).
There are several interesting aspects of dialogue in these two stories. Nicodemus’ character experiences a gradual decline in his interaction with Jesus. When he first approaches Jesus he states “we know…” (3:2). At the end of the story, Jesus asks him “Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things?” (3:10)
By contrast, the woman starts from a position of ignorance (who is the strange man?) and rude to Jesus (4:10). As her story progresses gradually comes to perceive more about who Jesus is (progression of names and the questions she asks). At the very end her encounter with Jesus she runs off and brings the entire village to Jesus. In John’s gospel, she brings more people to Jesus than any other character.
On a side note: Fortunately for Nicodemus, John was not done with him as a character. Later he will make a partial defense for Jesus before the Sanhedrin. And at Jesus’ crucifixion, he will ask Pilate for his body so that he might bury him. One of only a handful of people who remained loyal to Jesus at the very end.
Old Testament Themes in the story of the Samaritan Woman
The plot structure of the story of the Samaritan Woman follows the genre of engagement stories in the Old Testament and Rabbinic literature. In Jewish literature, there are several betrothal stories. These include the servant finding a wife for Isaac, Jacob meeting his wives (Gen 29:1-20), Moses meeting this wife, and Tobit meeting Sarah (see the book of Tobit). The plot of these stories is as follows:
1) Bridegroom travels to a foreign land
2) He meets a girl(s) at a well
3) Someone gets water from the well
4) The woman runs into the village to announce who she has met
5) The man and woman are engaged
This same plot structure is reflected in John 4. Jesus the bridegroom (3:39) travels to Samaria (4:4,9). There he meets the woman at the well. She draws water for him. Then after their discussion, she runs to the village to tell them about Jesus. While they do not end up getting betrothed, this idea is alluded to in two different ways.
First, in the story of the wedding at Cana, the bride and groom are conspicuously absent. In this story, Jesus and the Samaritan woman take the roles of the bride and groom from a narrative plot perspective.
As the bride, she brings baggage with her. She has been married five times and is currently living with a different man. Like Sarah, in the book of Tobit, she has had six men in her life and Jesus is the seventh (like Tobit is for Sarah). The number seven was viewed as a symbol of perfection or completion. Jesus is the man who brings salvation and wholeness to her life. (v. 22). The surprise is that she is not Jewish, or a man, but a Samaritan and with a history.
For more on the narrative structure and elements in this story see: Mark W. Stibbe, John, (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993).
Forth Sunday of Lent A
Old Testament
1 Sam 16:1-13
Saul has just won a major battle against the Amalekites under Samuel’s directions. However, there was one small detail in Samuel’s instructions that he had not followed. Everything was to be destroyed in the battle. Saul decided instead to keep some of the choicest of the livestock. According to Saul, he saved some to sacrifice to God. Samuel on the other hands suspects that Saul kept them as a prize from the war. In the end, Samuel says that God has rejected Saul as king of Israel because of his disobedience.
Samuel is then directed by God to replace Saul as king of Israel. God leads him to Jesse’s family in Bethlehem. To avoid Saul’s suspicion, he goes under the pretense to offer sacrifices there. (16:5) In the era before the Temple was built, there were several local altars and shrines scattered around Israel where the people worshipped. Elijah’s rebuilding an altar to the Lord on Mount Carmel another example. Later in the Old Testament, these local altars (high places) would be condemned by the prophets.
When Samuel arrives in Bethlehem, he invites Jesse and his sons to participate in the sacrifice. At the same time, he is watching to see who God wants him to anoint as the next king. Samuel has Jesse’s seven sons pass before him. God instructs him not to make his decision based on the height or appearance of Jesse’s sons. “Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him; for the LORD does not see as mortals see; they look on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart.” (16:7)
Jesse has his seven sons pass before Samuel and each time we are told that “Neither has the LORD chosen this one.” (16:8-10) Finally, Samuel asks if these are all the children. Jesse replies that the youngest is out in the fields tending sheep. The fact that David was not invited to the sacrifice and was sent to the fields indicates his low status as the youngest child in the family. It is only when David is summoned that we the Lord says, “Rise and anoint him; for this is the one.” (16:12) This follows a pattern that started with Seth in Genesis chapter 4. God works through those we would not normally assume. Seth was the third of Eve’s children. Jacob was Esau’s younger brother. Joseph was one of the youngest of Jacob’s sons. In each story, God worked through the child we would least expect. This theme is evident in this story as well.
On the surface, this is an interesting story about God’s replacing one king with a new one. And historically this is perhaps the most important aspect of the story. One king is rejected because of his partial obedience/disobedience and a new one is chosen that will replace him in the future.
The statement “… the LORD does not see as mortals see; they look on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart.” (16:7) is pivotal to this story. It also reflects a common theme in most religions, ancient and modern. Human perception is limited and in large part is determined by what we can see about that person. Samuel is limited during his time in Bethlehem by outward first impressions when he must make his choice for Israel’s next king. He does not have the luxury of observing that person’s character over time which would give him a much more accurate idea of what is in that person. God is not limited by that. God can discern the deepest secrets in someone’s heart. This is a theme that is repeated in various ways throughout the Bible.
16:13 “Samuel took the horn full of olive oil and anointed him (David)”
Anointing royal officials was a common practice in many nations in the Ancient Near Eastern. It was done for two reasons. The first was to protect that person from evil forces or influences. The second was to install a subordinate official to some form of office. It was similar to an oath. In Egypt, Pharaoh anointed his court officials and vassals with olive oil. This ritual showed their loyalty and subordination to him. At the same time, it was a promise that he would protect them. When Samuel anoints David it indicates that David is now a vassal servant to the Lord and that God will watch over and protect him. In 2 Samuel 2:4, the leaders of Judah will anoint David as their king. In that instance it probably indicates their recognizing him as their king and at the same time his duty to lead and protect them.
Old Testament
1 Sam 16:1-13
Saul has just won a major battle against the Amalekites under Samuel’s directions. However, there was one small detail in Samuel’s instructions that he had not followed. Everything was to be destroyed in the battle. Saul decided instead to keep some of the choicest of the livestock. According to Saul, he saved some to sacrifice to God. Samuel on the other hands suspects that Saul kept them as a prize from the war. In the end, Samuel says that God has rejected Saul as king of Israel because of his disobedience.
Samuel is then directed by God to replace Saul as king of Israel. God leads him to Jesse’s family in Bethlehem. To avoid Saul’s suspicion, he goes under the pretense to offer sacrifices there. (16:5) In the era before the Temple was built, there were several local altars and shrines scattered around Israel where the people worshipped. Elijah’s rebuilding an altar to the Lord on Mount Carmel another example. Later in the Old Testament, these local altars (high places) would be condemned by the prophets.
When Samuel arrives in Bethlehem, he invites Jesse and his sons to participate in the sacrifice. At the same time, he is watching to see who God wants him to anoint as the next king. Samuel has Jesse’s seven sons pass before him. God instructs him not to make his decision based on the height or appearance of Jesse’s sons. “Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him; for the LORD does not see as mortals see; they look on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart.” (16:7)
Jesse has his seven sons pass before Samuel and each time we are told that “Neither has the LORD chosen this one.” (16:8-10) Finally, Samuel asks if these are all the children. Jesse replies that the youngest is out in the fields tending sheep. The fact that David was not invited to the sacrifice and was sent to the fields indicates his low status as the youngest child in the family. It is only when David is summoned that we the Lord says, “Rise and anoint him; for this is the one.” (16:12) This follows a pattern that started with Seth in Genesis chapter 4. God works through those we would not normally assume. Seth was the third of Eve’s children. Jacob was Esau’s younger brother. Joseph was one of the youngest of Jacob’s sons. In each story, God worked through the child we would least expect. This theme is evident in this story as well.
On the surface, this is an interesting story about God’s replacing one king with a new one. And historically this is perhaps the most important aspect of the story. One king is rejected because of his partial obedience/disobedience and a new one is chosen that will replace him in the future.
The statement “… the LORD does not see as mortals see; they look on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart.” (16:7) is pivotal to this story. It also reflects a common theme in most religions, ancient and modern. Human perception is limited and in large part is determined by what we can see about that person. Samuel is limited during his time in Bethlehem by outward first impressions when he must make his choice for Israel’s next king. He does not have the luxury of observing that person’s character over time which would give him a much more accurate idea of what is in that person. God is not limited by that. God can discern the deepest secrets in someone’s heart. This is a theme that is repeated in various ways throughout the Bible.
16:13 “Samuel took the horn full of olive oil and anointed him (David)”
Anointing royal officials was a common practice in many nations in the Ancient Near Eastern. It was done for two reasons. The first was to protect that person from evil forces or influences. The second was to install a subordinate official to some form of office. It was similar to an oath. In Egypt, Pharaoh anointed his court officials and vassals with olive oil. This ritual showed their loyalty and subordination to him. At the same time, it was a promise that he would protect them. When Samuel anoints David it indicates that David is now a vassal servant to the Lord and that God will watch over and protect him. In 2 Samuel 2:4, the leaders of Judah will anoint David as their king. In that instance it probably indicates their recognizing him as their king and at the same time his duty to lead and protect them.
Fourth Sunday of Lent A
Psalm23
This is perhaps one of the most beautiful and best known of the Psalms. Anyone writing on Psalm 23 is immediately confronted with the challenge: How can anyone say anything new about such a well-known text? Our familiarity with the Psalm creates another problem. Do we hearing the message of the Psalm, or are we repeating what we have been told it says?
God as a shepherd was a widespread metaphor in the Ancient Near East. It is based on their familiarity with the vocation and caring for livestock. Shepherding was an occupation that everyone would have been familiar with.
Those who worshipped a particular god were also pictured as sheep. The relationship between shepherds and sheep was an image that readily mapped onto the relationship between a people and their god. First, domesticated sheep are not particularly robust animals. They require protection for predators and care from the shepherd. Second, they are not particularly intelligent animals. Third, as domesticated livestock, sheep have been bred to trust in and follow their shepherd. Moreover, they were the property of the shepherd (or the person they worked for) and were raised for specific purposes (to provide wool, food, or sacrifice). All of these ideas were employed to explain the relationship between a god and those who worshipped him.
One point we need to bear in mind is the gender of the shepherd. Shepherding was not just a male occupation but was often performed by women, especially before they were married. Rachel shepherded her father’s sheep (Genesis 29:9). Moses’ wife was a shepherd as well (Exodus 2:6-22).
Throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, God is compared to a shepherd (see Psalm 77:20, 78: 52, or 95:7 for other examples). In this Psalm, the metaphor of God as our shepherd is highly developed. The first line opens with this very thought, “The LORD is my shepherd.” This image is developed as the Psalm progresses with various aspects from the role of a shepherd applied to God. The references to “lush pastures,” “refreshing waters,” and “leading me on the path” are all taken directly from the daily life of a shepherd.
23:2
“Green pastures” and “still waters” are images that are derived from the semi-arid environment of the Middle East. Someone raised in England might have a hard time imagining why ‘green pastures’ were significant. But in an arid climate, the ability to find fresh grass or a lush meadow for their sheep would have been a critical skill for a shepherd. Not only does the shepherd guide his sheep to these verdant fields to graze but it is also a place of safety and rest. “He makes me lie down in green pastures.” (23:2 ESV)
23:4 “The deep valley of darkness.”
This Hebrew phrase has been translated several different ways from “deep valley” to “valley of death’s shadow.” Given the rugged topography of Israel, it is probably a metaphorical image taken from the very deep, narrow, and jagged wadis that slice through that semi-arid land. Jeremiah 2:6 makes a non-metaphorical use of this image: “Where is the LORD who brought us up from the land of Egypt, who led us in the wilderness, in a land of deserts and pits, in a land of drought and deep darkness, in a land that none passes through, where no man dwells?” (Jeremiah 2:6 ESV) Even in situations that look very dangerous and threatening, the Psalmist affirms that they will not fear danger because God is with them.
“Rod” refers to the short wooden clubs a shepherd would use for herding or protection of the sheep. In the same way, the “staff” was a long wooden stick that was used for walking, protection, and coercing sheep to go in the right direction.
23:5 “Anointing with oil” is discussed in the reading from 1 Samuel 16.
The metaphors begin to get mixed at this point. Instead of the ‘lush pastures,’ we have ‘a feast’ and a ‘cup that is overflowing’ instead of ‘still waters. The Psalmist moves us from the agrarian countryside to the courts of the Temple.
23:6 “Goodness and mercy”
Goodness expresses God’s provision of what is “good” for that person. It parallels the ideas of “green pastures” and “still waters” in the first half. “Mercy” is the Hebrew noun חֶסֶד (hesed). This can be translated as “unfailing love,” “mercy,” or “loving-kindness.” It is one of the primary nouns used to describe God’s unconditional love for his people in the Hebrew scriptures.
“I will live in the Lord’s house”
The metaphorical image is now firmly located within the temple. Instead of dwelling with the shepherd in a sheep-hold or hillside, the Psalmist has the reader in the Temple. If we hold onto the image of sheep/shepherd for a moment, it creates an interesting image. That of the Temple in Jerusalem filled with sheep -- and in a very good way.
“Forever”
The idea of dwelling in God’s house “forever” was a familiar idea not just in Israel but in other religions. In the ruins of ancient Sumerian temples, small figurines people in different postures of prayer have been found. These figurines represent a very tangible way in which the Sumerians tried to have themselves represented in their temples at all times. In Israel, this was a metaphorical ideal for the people. Dwelling in God’s presence was so incredible that it should represent the heartfelt desire of all people.
Psalm23
This is perhaps one of the most beautiful and best known of the Psalms. Anyone writing on Psalm 23 is immediately confronted with the challenge: How can anyone say anything new about such a well-known text? Our familiarity with the Psalm creates another problem. Do we hearing the message of the Psalm, or are we repeating what we have been told it says?
God as a shepherd was a widespread metaphor in the Ancient Near East. It is based on their familiarity with the vocation and caring for livestock. Shepherding was an occupation that everyone would have been familiar with.
Those who worshipped a particular god were also pictured as sheep. The relationship between shepherds and sheep was an image that readily mapped onto the relationship between a people and their god. First, domesticated sheep are not particularly robust animals. They require protection for predators and care from the shepherd. Second, they are not particularly intelligent animals. Third, as domesticated livestock, sheep have been bred to trust in and follow their shepherd. Moreover, they were the property of the shepherd (or the person they worked for) and were raised for specific purposes (to provide wool, food, or sacrifice). All of these ideas were employed to explain the relationship between a god and those who worshipped him.
One point we need to bear in mind is the gender of the shepherd. Shepherding was not just a male occupation but was often performed by women, especially before they were married. Rachel shepherded her father’s sheep (Genesis 29:9). Moses’ wife was a shepherd as well (Exodus 2:6-22).
Throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, God is compared to a shepherd (see Psalm 77:20, 78: 52, or 95:7 for other examples). In this Psalm, the metaphor of God as our shepherd is highly developed. The first line opens with this very thought, “The LORD is my shepherd.” This image is developed as the Psalm progresses with various aspects from the role of a shepherd applied to God. The references to “lush pastures,” “refreshing waters,” and “leading me on the path” are all taken directly from the daily life of a shepherd.
23:2
“Green pastures” and “still waters” are images that are derived from the semi-arid environment of the Middle East. Someone raised in England might have a hard time imagining why ‘green pastures’ were significant. But in an arid climate, the ability to find fresh grass or a lush meadow for their sheep would have been a critical skill for a shepherd. Not only does the shepherd guide his sheep to these verdant fields to graze but it is also a place of safety and rest. “He makes me lie down in green pastures.” (23:2 ESV)
23:4 “The deep valley of darkness.”
This Hebrew phrase has been translated several different ways from “deep valley” to “valley of death’s shadow.” Given the rugged topography of Israel, it is probably a metaphorical image taken from the very deep, narrow, and jagged wadis that slice through that semi-arid land. Jeremiah 2:6 makes a non-metaphorical use of this image: “Where is the LORD who brought us up from the land of Egypt, who led us in the wilderness, in a land of deserts and pits, in a land of drought and deep darkness, in a land that none passes through, where no man dwells?” (Jeremiah 2:6 ESV) Even in situations that look very dangerous and threatening, the Psalmist affirms that they will not fear danger because God is with them.
“Rod” refers to the short wooden clubs a shepherd would use for herding or protection of the sheep. In the same way, the “staff” was a long wooden stick that was used for walking, protection, and coercing sheep to go in the right direction.
23:5 “Anointing with oil” is discussed in the reading from 1 Samuel 16.
The metaphors begin to get mixed at this point. Instead of the ‘lush pastures,’ we have ‘a feast’ and a ‘cup that is overflowing’ instead of ‘still waters. The Psalmist moves us from the agrarian countryside to the courts of the Temple.
23:6 “Goodness and mercy”
Goodness expresses God’s provision of what is “good” for that person. It parallels the ideas of “green pastures” and “still waters” in the first half. “Mercy” is the Hebrew noun חֶסֶד (hesed). This can be translated as “unfailing love,” “mercy,” or “loving-kindness.” It is one of the primary nouns used to describe God’s unconditional love for his people in the Hebrew scriptures.
“I will live in the Lord’s house”
The metaphorical image is now firmly located within the temple. Instead of dwelling with the shepherd in a sheep-hold or hillside, the Psalmist has the reader in the Temple. If we hold onto the image of sheep/shepherd for a moment, it creates an interesting image. That of the Temple in Jerusalem filled with sheep -- and in a very good way.
“Forever”
The idea of dwelling in God’s house “forever” was a familiar idea not just in Israel but in other religions. In the ruins of ancient Sumerian temples, small figurines people in different postures of prayer have been found. These figurines represent a very tangible way in which the Sumerians tried to have themselves represented in their temples at all times. In Israel, this was a metaphorical ideal for the people. Dwelling in God’s presence was so incredible that it should represent the heartfelt desire of all people.
Fourth Sunday of Lent
Epistle
Ephesians 5:1-14
“Be imitators of God.” (5:1) Ephesians 5 opens with an imperative. This idea of imitation activates a rich line of thought. Children imitated their parents during Paul’s day (much to the humor or chagrin of their parents) as they do today. Paul even places this command within the frame of a family relationship, “as beloved children.”
Imitation is based on one person representing the traits or mannerisms of another person in such a way that others readily recognize the person being imitated in the imitator.
We imitate others all the time, whether we recognize it or not. The way we dress, interact with others, and speak are all based on our imitating what we see and learn from others. Paul calls for us to “be imitators of God.” The implication is that others would recognize in our lives, mannerisms, and speech the God we are imitating. The clearest model that we have for imitating God is in the life and death of Jesus Christ.
This “imitation” is also disruptive. For someone to imitate God implies that they need to take on new ways of being in the world. New mannerisms. New ways to respond to others. Or as Paul writes in 5:10-11, “[try] to learn what is pleasing to the Lord. Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness…” (NASB)
In this Sunday’s reading from Ephesians, Paul compares two ways of life. Those who walk in the light and those who walk in darkness. The story of the blind man, John 9, contains many of the same points that Paul makes in this passage.
The metaphorical concepts of light and darkness connote a host of ideas.
All of these and other metaphorical connotations for “light” and “darkness” are being profiled in this passage.
Paul contrasts what it means to imitate God with “walking in darkness” in 4-8a. To those walking in darkness Paul issues a very stark warning, they have no “inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.” (5:5) Paul’s warning does not just stop with those doomed to judgment. He also warns the church against such people. “Do not be deceived” by their empty words, dishonesty, sexual immorality, and greed (5:5-6). The church is to have no association with people like this because darkness and light can not coexist. You are either one or the other. At the end of this section, Paul calls us back to the disruptive practice of imitating God. “[O]nce you were darkness, but now in the Lord you are light.” (5:8a) By imitating God, who is light, the contrast between our present and past lives will be like that of light and darkness.
5:14 Baptismal Fragment
In closing, Paul issues a call to all Christians:
5:14 “Awake Sleeper
Arise from the dead,
and Christ will dawn on you.”
This is a very interesting verse. First, the structure of this verse breaks the logic and flow of this passage. Second, it is poetical and contains three very interesting images.
“Waking up”
“Arising (getting up out of a death bed)”
“Christ will shine on you” (like the dawn of morning).
Many commentators think that Paul was quoting from a very early baptismal formal. A baptismal formula that was used in the early church but probably did not originate with Paul.
Because they were familiar with it he could quote it in his letter and they would have seen it as authoritative.
The way this verse could have functioned in early baptismal rituals is as follows. The person being baptized would confess their faith. The elder or church leader would lower them under the water (or pour it over their head). While they did this, they would pronounce “Awake sleeper!” Then, as the person being baptized was rising from the water (or wiping it from their face), the elder would continue, “Arise from the dead.” And finally, as the baptized person opened their eyes again, the baptizer would invoke, “and Christ will dawn on you.” This last phrase, “Christ will shine on you” and its relationship to the person opening their eyes again ties in with Paul’s imagery of light and darkness in the previous section of this reading. This physical act (of opening their eyes again after being baptized) creates a beautiful embodiment of the idea of “you were in darkness, but now are light in the Lord.” (5:8 ESV)
Epistle
Ephesians 5:1-14
“Be imitators of God.” (5:1) Ephesians 5 opens with an imperative. This idea of imitation activates a rich line of thought. Children imitated their parents during Paul’s day (much to the humor or chagrin of their parents) as they do today. Paul even places this command within the frame of a family relationship, “as beloved children.”
Imitation is based on one person representing the traits or mannerisms of another person in such a way that others readily recognize the person being imitated in the imitator.
We imitate others all the time, whether we recognize it or not. The way we dress, interact with others, and speak are all based on our imitating what we see and learn from others. Paul calls for us to “be imitators of God.” The implication is that others would recognize in our lives, mannerisms, and speech the God we are imitating. The clearest model that we have for imitating God is in the life and death of Jesus Christ.
This “imitation” is also disruptive. For someone to imitate God implies that they need to take on new ways of being in the world. New mannerisms. New ways to respond to others. Or as Paul writes in 5:10-11, “[try] to learn what is pleasing to the Lord. Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness…” (NASB)
In this Sunday’s reading from Ephesians, Paul compares two ways of life. Those who walk in the light and those who walk in darkness. The story of the blind man, John 9, contains many of the same points that Paul makes in this passage.
The metaphorical concepts of light and darkness connote a host of ideas.
- Light allows us to see. This is a basic aspect of daily life. Our primary mode for understanding something is through the visual senses. And our use of language reflects this. Consider how many phrases use visual metaphors to convey understanding. “Do you see what I am saying?”
- The metaphorical concepts of “light” and “darkness” also convey the idea that things are out in the open or hidden. If we can see something then we know what it is. But if it is in darkness we cannot see what it is. This is easily transferred to moral categories. For something to be “in the light” connotes honesty and openness. It is not concealed. If something is said to be “in darkness” it conveys that this is concealed, hidden, that someone does not want it to be seen.
All of these and other metaphorical connotations for “light” and “darkness” are being profiled in this passage.
Paul contrasts what it means to imitate God with “walking in darkness” in 4-8a. To those walking in darkness Paul issues a very stark warning, they have no “inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.” (5:5) Paul’s warning does not just stop with those doomed to judgment. He also warns the church against such people. “Do not be deceived” by their empty words, dishonesty, sexual immorality, and greed (5:5-6). The church is to have no association with people like this because darkness and light can not coexist. You are either one or the other. At the end of this section, Paul calls us back to the disruptive practice of imitating God. “[O]nce you were darkness, but now in the Lord you are light.” (5:8a) By imitating God, who is light, the contrast between our present and past lives will be like that of light and darkness.
5:14 Baptismal Fragment
In closing, Paul issues a call to all Christians:
5:14 “Awake Sleeper
Arise from the dead,
and Christ will dawn on you.”
This is a very interesting verse. First, the structure of this verse breaks the logic and flow of this passage. Second, it is poetical and contains three very interesting images.
“Waking up”
“Arising (getting up out of a death bed)”
“Christ will shine on you” (like the dawn of morning).
Many commentators think that Paul was quoting from a very early baptismal formal. A baptismal formula that was used in the early church but probably did not originate with Paul.
Because they were familiar with it he could quote it in his letter and they would have seen it as authoritative.
The way this verse could have functioned in early baptismal rituals is as follows. The person being baptized would confess their faith. The elder or church leader would lower them under the water (or pour it over their head). While they did this, they would pronounce “Awake sleeper!” Then, as the person being baptized was rising from the water (or wiping it from their face), the elder would continue, “Arise from the dead.” And finally, as the baptized person opened their eyes again, the baptizer would invoke, “and Christ will dawn on you.” This last phrase, “Christ will shine on you” and its relationship to the person opening their eyes again ties in with Paul’s imagery of light and darkness in the previous section of this reading. This physical act (of opening their eyes again after being baptized) creates a beautiful embodiment of the idea of “you were in darkness, but now are light in the Lord.” (5:8 ESV)
Fourth Sunday of Lent
Gospel
John 9:1-13, 28-38(39- 41)
The story of the blind man opens with a profound question — whose sin caused this man to be born blind? This raises both a theological and very human question. We map from visible external appearances to the internal qualities that we cannot see in a person. And then we draw conclusions from those mappings. For example, when we see someone begging in the street in rough clothing we immediately assume they have some sort of moral failing: they are lazy or a drug addict. However, they could have been born into a poor family, have a mental illness, been at the wrong place at the wrong time, etc. In the same way, as the disciples walk past this blind man they are mapping from external traits (blindness) to inner ones (sin).
This story opens with a similar issue to that raised in the story of Samuel anointing David as the next king. Samuel was making judgments about the suitability of Israel’s next king based on external traits.
Before looking at several points in the text there are several themes in this story that are related to other passages in John’s gospel. These include:
1:4-5 “In him was life, and the life was the light of all people. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it.” The blind man’s story is a visible manifestation of this passage from the prologue. His blindness leads to sight and a recognition of who the Light of the World is. At the same time, those who see in this story, the leaders of the synagogue, demonstrate that they do not see and are in the darkness.
8.12 “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness but will have the light of life.” At the end of the story, the blind man recognizes who Jesus is and worships him (9:38).
The story of the blind man falls into seven very neat sections. Each with their own main characters and dialogue.
9:1-7 Jesus heals the blind man
9:8-12 The blind man is questioned by his neighbors
9:13-17 First time the blind man is questioned by the Pharisees
9:18-23 The Pharisees question the man’s parents
9:24-42 Second time the blind man is questioned by the Pharisees
9:35-38 Jesus finds the blind man and he recognizes Jesus as Lord
9:39-41 Jesus’ teaching on blindness and sight
9:5 “I am the light of the world.”
This is a direct quote from 8:12 where Jesus uttered the identical claim. Giving this man the ability to see for the first time in his life will be the visible demonstration of this claim.
9:6 “He spat on the ground”
Making a salve from spit may have parallels in ancient medical and miracle worker practices but there does not seem to be any parallels in the Jewish communities. Spitting in the dirt would have been perceived as unclean. The blind man and those around him would have been a bit uneasy with Jesus’ actions of rubbing his spit and mud on the blind man’s eyes. At the same time, there may be an allusion to God’s creative acts of making man out of clay in Genesis 2:7 (however, the Greek word used in Genesis not the same as the one used here). This story does have parallels with Mark 8:23 where Jesus healed a blind man by spitting directly on his eyes.
9:7 “Go, wash in the pool of Siloam”
This passage is loaded with all sorts of intertextual references. First, the name of the pool is ‘Siloam’ which means ‘sent one.’ This was a designation that the early church quickly picked up for Jesus. Second, that he is to wash in the water of this pool Siloam (Σιλωάμ) is a Greek transliteration from the Hebrew שׁלח (shiloah) which means sent (see Isaiah 8:6). Even though his sight was restored after he washed in the pool, John makes it clear that Jesus was the one who effected the healing. The symbolism of the water which restores sight (i.e. baptism) would have been quickly picked up by John’s readers.
The fact that this man was blind and has his eyes opened for the first time after washing in water ties in with this Sunday’s reading from Ephesians 5:14 as well.
9:8-34 The Blind man’s Story told and retold
It is worth noting also that the healing of the blind man is told with great simplicity. The healing only occupies two verses in the entire chapter (9:6-7). However, his experience after being healed takes up the bulk of this chapter (9:8-34). John uses four different dialogues or interrogations to reveal who Jesus is.
When his neighbors question him about who healed him he honestly tells them that it was Jesus (9:11). When the Pharisees interrogate the blind man he declares that Jesus is a prophet (9:17). When they question him a second time, they threaten with expulsion from the synagogue if he does not renounce Jesus as a miracle worker (9:24, 28-31). The blind man replies by pointing out that they do not know much about Jesus. And that contrary to their assertions about Jesus being a sinner he argues that only someone sent by God could heal someone born blind (9:30-33)
Woven into the blind man’s story is a challenge for every believer.
What price are you willing to pay for knowing Christ? The blind man has never seen Jesus and has only recently experienced his healing touch. Yet he stands firm in the face of hostility and the possibility of being cut off from the very community that he has known his entire life.
9:34 “You were born entirely in sins…”
The story ends the same way it began, with a question about this man’s ‘sin.’
The difference is that the story opened with a question. Now a conclusion has been reached by the authorities and there is no longer any discussion about it. This man was born blind, therefore there must be something morally wrong with him. This conclusion is paralleled with the argument that the Pharisees and the blind man make. For the Pharisees, Jesus is a sinner because he is not operating according to their understanding of the Mosaic covenant. As such, he is a false teacher leading the people astray. Even though they can see, they fail to perceive who Jesus is. The blind man, by contrast, could not see but recognizes who Jesus is. His argument rests on the assumption that no one has healed someone born blind before. “If this man were not from God, he could do nothing.” (9:33)
9:35-38
When Jesus heard that they drove him out of the synagogue he sought him out and found him. (9:35) He then asked him, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?” Like the leaders in the synagogue, Jesus questions the man as well. What is interesting is that this man has never seen Jesus before. The formerly blind man would like to know who this is so that he may believe in him. To which Jesus replies “You have seen him, and this one is the one speaking with you.” (9:37) The way John tells the story implies that the blind man does not recognize Jesus when he sees him. Rather, he recognizes Jesus based on hearing Jesus’ words “the one speaking with you.”
This sets up Jesus’ teachings on the Good Shepherd in chapter 10. The Good Shepherd knows his sheep and calls them by name (as Jesus does with the blind man - he sought him out). The sheep recognize the Shepherd’s voice and follow him (10:3-4; 14). Speaking as one of the Good Shepherd’s sheep the man born blind declares, “Lord, I believe” (9.38) and worshipped Jesus.
Gospel
John 9:1-13, 28-38(39- 41)
The story of the blind man opens with a profound question — whose sin caused this man to be born blind? This raises both a theological and very human question. We map from visible external appearances to the internal qualities that we cannot see in a person. And then we draw conclusions from those mappings. For example, when we see someone begging in the street in rough clothing we immediately assume they have some sort of moral failing: they are lazy or a drug addict. However, they could have been born into a poor family, have a mental illness, been at the wrong place at the wrong time, etc. In the same way, as the disciples walk past this blind man they are mapping from external traits (blindness) to inner ones (sin).
This story opens with a similar issue to that raised in the story of Samuel anointing David as the next king. Samuel was making judgments about the suitability of Israel’s next king based on external traits.
Before looking at several points in the text there are several themes in this story that are related to other passages in John’s gospel. These include:
1:4-5 “In him was life, and the life was the light of all people. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it.” The blind man’s story is a visible manifestation of this passage from the prologue. His blindness leads to sight and a recognition of who the Light of the World is. At the same time, those who see in this story, the leaders of the synagogue, demonstrate that they do not see and are in the darkness.
8.12 “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness but will have the light of life.” At the end of the story, the blind man recognizes who Jesus is and worships him (9:38).
The story of the blind man falls into seven very neat sections. Each with their own main characters and dialogue.
9:1-7 Jesus heals the blind man
9:8-12 The blind man is questioned by his neighbors
9:13-17 First time the blind man is questioned by the Pharisees
9:18-23 The Pharisees question the man’s parents
9:24-42 Second time the blind man is questioned by the Pharisees
9:35-38 Jesus finds the blind man and he recognizes Jesus as Lord
9:39-41 Jesus’ teaching on blindness and sight
9:5 “I am the light of the world.”
This is a direct quote from 8:12 where Jesus uttered the identical claim. Giving this man the ability to see for the first time in his life will be the visible demonstration of this claim.
9:6 “He spat on the ground”
Making a salve from spit may have parallels in ancient medical and miracle worker practices but there does not seem to be any parallels in the Jewish communities. Spitting in the dirt would have been perceived as unclean. The blind man and those around him would have been a bit uneasy with Jesus’ actions of rubbing his spit and mud on the blind man’s eyes. At the same time, there may be an allusion to God’s creative acts of making man out of clay in Genesis 2:7 (however, the Greek word used in Genesis not the same as the one used here). This story does have parallels with Mark 8:23 where Jesus healed a blind man by spitting directly on his eyes.
9:7 “Go, wash in the pool of Siloam”
This passage is loaded with all sorts of intertextual references. First, the name of the pool is ‘Siloam’ which means ‘sent one.’ This was a designation that the early church quickly picked up for Jesus. Second, that he is to wash in the water of this pool Siloam (Σιλωάμ) is a Greek transliteration from the Hebrew שׁלח (shiloah) which means sent (see Isaiah 8:6). Even though his sight was restored after he washed in the pool, John makes it clear that Jesus was the one who effected the healing. The symbolism of the water which restores sight (i.e. baptism) would have been quickly picked up by John’s readers.
The fact that this man was blind and has his eyes opened for the first time after washing in water ties in with this Sunday’s reading from Ephesians 5:14 as well.
9:8-34 The Blind man’s Story told and retold
It is worth noting also that the healing of the blind man is told with great simplicity. The healing only occupies two verses in the entire chapter (9:6-7). However, his experience after being healed takes up the bulk of this chapter (9:8-34). John uses four different dialogues or interrogations to reveal who Jesus is.
When his neighbors question him about who healed him he honestly tells them that it was Jesus (9:11). When the Pharisees interrogate the blind man he declares that Jesus is a prophet (9:17). When they question him a second time, they threaten with expulsion from the synagogue if he does not renounce Jesus as a miracle worker (9:24, 28-31). The blind man replies by pointing out that they do not know much about Jesus. And that contrary to their assertions about Jesus being a sinner he argues that only someone sent by God could heal someone born blind (9:30-33)
Woven into the blind man’s story is a challenge for every believer.
What price are you willing to pay for knowing Christ? The blind man has never seen Jesus and has only recently experienced his healing touch. Yet he stands firm in the face of hostility and the possibility of being cut off from the very community that he has known his entire life.
9:34 “You were born entirely in sins…”
The story ends the same way it began, with a question about this man’s ‘sin.’
The difference is that the story opened with a question. Now a conclusion has been reached by the authorities and there is no longer any discussion about it. This man was born blind, therefore there must be something morally wrong with him. This conclusion is paralleled with the argument that the Pharisees and the blind man make. For the Pharisees, Jesus is a sinner because he is not operating according to their understanding of the Mosaic covenant. As such, he is a false teacher leading the people astray. Even though they can see, they fail to perceive who Jesus is. The blind man, by contrast, could not see but recognizes who Jesus is. His argument rests on the assumption that no one has healed someone born blind before. “If this man were not from God, he could do nothing.” (9:33)
9:35-38
When Jesus heard that they drove him out of the synagogue he sought him out and found him. (9:35) He then asked him, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?” Like the leaders in the synagogue, Jesus questions the man as well. What is interesting is that this man has never seen Jesus before. The formerly blind man would like to know who this is so that he may believe in him. To which Jesus replies “You have seen him, and this one is the one speaking with you.” (9:37) The way John tells the story implies that the blind man does not recognize Jesus when he sees him. Rather, he recognizes Jesus based on hearing Jesus’ words “the one speaking with you.”
This sets up Jesus’ teachings on the Good Shepherd in chapter 10. The Good Shepherd knows his sheep and calls them by name (as Jesus does with the blind man - he sought him out). The sheep recognize the Shepherd’s voice and follow him (10:3-4; 14). Speaking as one of the Good Shepherd’s sheep the man born blind declares, “Lord, I believe” (9.38) and worshipped Jesus.
Fifth Sunday of Lent A
Epistle
Romans 6:15-23
The image of slavery was often employed by Greco-Roman and Jewish teachers to warn their hearers about the dangers of false teachings, evil passions, or other immoral practices. It was also one of Paul’s favorite metaphors to teach on the Christian life (see Galatians 4:21-5:15). It was an image readily understood by all of Paul’s readers. Slavery was a practice that consumed the Roman Empire. When Paul’s letter to the Romans was written 25-40% of the population were slaves. Slavery was the most fundamental status indicator of a person in the Roman Empire. Whether a person was Jew or Gentile, male or female, was secondary to their status as free or slave. A free man or woman was a person while a slave was property (they were not human).
Paul opens this passage with a rather generic imperative, “do not let sin reign in your bodies.” (6:12) By contrast, the reader is to present the parts (Gk μέλος, melos: limb or part of the body) of their bodies to God as his “instruments” or “tools.” The Greek term for “instrument” is ὅπλα (hopla, where the word for a Greek soldier, a hoplite, is derived) and can refer to instruments, tools or weapons. Because Paul is using the metaphor of slavery in this passage the idea of instrument or tool is prominent.
The idea that “sin will have no mastery over you” may reflect Paul’s rabbinic background. Some Rabbis taught that Israel could not be enslaved by degenerate desires like the Gentiles because God gave them the law (6:14). If that is the case, then Paul was transforming or enlarging God’s gracious covenant with Israel. Israel could be dominated by degenerate desires because of the Law. Now sin has dominion over the church because of God’s grace.
6:15-16
Paul then asked a rhetorical question – and even answered it himself. Should someone sin because they are under grace? “Absolutely NOT!”
I doubt if anyone consciously asks this question, “Should I sin because I am under grace?” Yet we are often guilty of doing exactly this. We excuse our weakness, personal shortcomings, sinful attitudes and actions away. “Oh, that is just how I am ...” Thinking that because we are under grace God fully accepts us and there is no need for us to change. For Paul, such reasoning could not be farther from the truth. We need to bring all of who we are under the Lordship of Christ and present ourselves to him as his slave. There are two paths before us. We can continue to present ourselves to sin which results in death. Or present ourselves as obedient slaves to God that results in righteousness. For Paul, there is no middle ground, we are on one path or the other.
6:17
Paul backs off a little from the strong language he has used so far. He thanks God that the Roman believers have yielded their lives to Christ. Sin was once their master now Christ was.
6:19
Paul returns to his argument at 6:16. The Roman readers are challenged with a choice as to who they would serve. At this point, Paul puts an interesting spin on the metaphor of slavery. Slaves were not given the choice of their master. It was the other way around. Paul portrays a situation in which two masters are trading a slave. However, Paul depicts the slave making the choice as to who they will serve.
If we present the parts of our bodies to impurity as their master the result will be a downward spiral. By contrast, if we present the various areas of our lives to Christ as our master then this will result in our sanctification. The hymn “Take my Life and Let it be” is an excellent adaptation of Paul’s line of reasoning.
Take my life, and let it be consecrated, Lord, to Thee ... Take my hands, and let them move at the impulse of Thy love; Take my feet and let them be swift and beautiful for Thee ...
We offer the different parts (members) of our bodies and lives to Christ’s Lordship as the hymn progresses.
6:21-23
“So what is the benefit that you reap?” Paul continues his use of the metaphor of slavery. However, he turns his attention to a different aspect of this metaphor. Instead of asking who is your master he switches to the idea of payment or reward. In Greco- Roman culture slaves often were page a small wage (peculium or stipendium in Latin). This was viewed as a positive thing in the Roman world. A slave might even be able to purchase their freedom if they saved up enough. However, Paul takes this idea and turns it on its head. The “wages” of sin (6:24) is death. In contrast to this tiny ‘wage’ paid to slaves, God gives us the free gift of eternal life. It is not that paying a slave was wrong. But by comparison, God offers us something much greater.
Note: In verse 21 the Greek word for “benefit” is καρπός (karpos). This word normally refers to “fruit.” However, it can also be used to denote wages or a reward. In this context, Paul is using it to represent the “reward” a slave might receive similar to the Latin words mentioned above.
Paul uses the metaphor of slavery to teach us several very important truths in this very dense argument. First, if we present ourselves to sin the result it death (6:16, 21, 23). But as believers, we have been slave traded. We have been freed from sin and enslaved to God (6:18, 20, 22). As a result, we are to present all that we are to our new master, God (6:13, 16, 18, 19, 22).
Epistle
Romans 6:15-23
The image of slavery was often employed by Greco-Roman and Jewish teachers to warn their hearers about the dangers of false teachings, evil passions, or other immoral practices. It was also one of Paul’s favorite metaphors to teach on the Christian life (see Galatians 4:21-5:15). It was an image readily understood by all of Paul’s readers. Slavery was a practice that consumed the Roman Empire. When Paul’s letter to the Romans was written 25-40% of the population were slaves. Slavery was the most fundamental status indicator of a person in the Roman Empire. Whether a person was Jew or Gentile, male or female, was secondary to their status as free or slave. A free man or woman was a person while a slave was property (they were not human).
Paul opens this passage with a rather generic imperative, “do not let sin reign in your bodies.” (6:12) By contrast, the reader is to present the parts (Gk μέλος, melos: limb or part of the body) of their bodies to God as his “instruments” or “tools.” The Greek term for “instrument” is ὅπλα (hopla, where the word for a Greek soldier, a hoplite, is derived) and can refer to instruments, tools or weapons. Because Paul is using the metaphor of slavery in this passage the idea of instrument or tool is prominent.
The idea that “sin will have no mastery over you” may reflect Paul’s rabbinic background. Some Rabbis taught that Israel could not be enslaved by degenerate desires like the Gentiles because God gave them the law (6:14). If that is the case, then Paul was transforming or enlarging God’s gracious covenant with Israel. Israel could be dominated by degenerate desires because of the Law. Now sin has dominion over the church because of God’s grace.
6:15-16
Paul then asked a rhetorical question – and even answered it himself. Should someone sin because they are under grace? “Absolutely NOT!”
I doubt if anyone consciously asks this question, “Should I sin because I am under grace?” Yet we are often guilty of doing exactly this. We excuse our weakness, personal shortcomings, sinful attitudes and actions away. “Oh, that is just how I am ...” Thinking that because we are under grace God fully accepts us and there is no need for us to change. For Paul, such reasoning could not be farther from the truth. We need to bring all of who we are under the Lordship of Christ and present ourselves to him as his slave. There are two paths before us. We can continue to present ourselves to sin which results in death. Or present ourselves as obedient slaves to God that results in righteousness. For Paul, there is no middle ground, we are on one path or the other.
6:17
Paul backs off a little from the strong language he has used so far. He thanks God that the Roman believers have yielded their lives to Christ. Sin was once their master now Christ was.
6:19
Paul returns to his argument at 6:16. The Roman readers are challenged with a choice as to who they would serve. At this point, Paul puts an interesting spin on the metaphor of slavery. Slaves were not given the choice of their master. It was the other way around. Paul portrays a situation in which two masters are trading a slave. However, Paul depicts the slave making the choice as to who they will serve.
If we present the parts of our bodies to impurity as their master the result will be a downward spiral. By contrast, if we present the various areas of our lives to Christ as our master then this will result in our sanctification. The hymn “Take my Life and Let it be” is an excellent adaptation of Paul’s line of reasoning.
Take my life, and let it be consecrated, Lord, to Thee ... Take my hands, and let them move at the impulse of Thy love; Take my feet and let them be swift and beautiful for Thee ...
We offer the different parts (members) of our bodies and lives to Christ’s Lordship as the hymn progresses.
6:21-23
“So what is the benefit that you reap?” Paul continues his use of the metaphor of slavery. However, he turns his attention to a different aspect of this metaphor. Instead of asking who is your master he switches to the idea of payment or reward. In Greco- Roman culture slaves often were page a small wage (peculium or stipendium in Latin). This was viewed as a positive thing in the Roman world. A slave might even be able to purchase their freedom if they saved up enough. However, Paul takes this idea and turns it on its head. The “wages” of sin (6:24) is death. In contrast to this tiny ‘wage’ paid to slaves, God gives us the free gift of eternal life. It is not that paying a slave was wrong. But by comparison, God offers us something much greater.
Note: In verse 21 the Greek word for “benefit” is καρπός (karpos). This word normally refers to “fruit.” However, it can also be used to denote wages or a reward. In this context, Paul is using it to represent the “reward” a slave might receive similar to the Latin words mentioned above.
Paul uses the metaphor of slavery to teach us several very important truths in this very dense argument. First, if we present ourselves to sin the result it death (6:16, 21, 23). But as believers, we have been slave traded. We have been freed from sin and enslaved to God (6:18, 20, 22). As a result, we are to present all that we are to our new master, God (6:13, 16, 18, 19, 22).
Fifth Sunday of Lent A
Gospel
John 11:(1-17)18-44
An interesting aspect of this miracle is that the first 19 verses set up the miracle. Normally in John, Jesus performs a miracle and then John includes an extended discussion on the theological implications that arise from that miracle. In this text, he reverses his normal pattern. This shift in John’s narrative strategy should alert the reader to the fact that they need to give attention to “how” John is relating the story of Mary, Martha, and Lazarus.
11:1-15 Anticipation
This section sets the stage for the miracle and links this chapter with chapter 10. We need to remember that when John wrote his gospel there were no chapter divisions. If we take out these artificial divisions chapters then the unity between chapters 10 and 11 is more evident.
In chapter 10 Jesus gave his sermon on the good shepherd. Immediately after that Jesus is in Jerusalem for the Feast of Dedication. During that feast, Jesus is challenged to reveal if he was the Messiah. Jesus’ reply is evasive and so aggravates his challengers that they were ready to stone him (10:31). The dispute at the end of chapter 10 revolves around several key issues. These are: (1) Jesus being the good shepherd who gives eternal life to his sheep, (2) Jesus’ miracles are done in the Father’s name and bear witness to him, and (3) Jesus claims that “I am the Son of God.” All of these themes are central to the story of Mary, Martha, and Lazarus.
The story of the raising of Lazarus opens with an immediate note of urgency, “now a certain man was ill, Lazarus.” (11:1)
The second verse in chapter 11 does not fit the narrative context well. The way John has constructed the sentence leads the reader to assume that he was referring to an event already mentioned in John’s gospel. Grammatically, John mentions this event as if it had already taken place. However, Mary will not anoint Jesus until chapter 12. Disjunctions like this are common in John and are part of his narrative style. He expected his readers to already be familiar with the story of Mary anointing Jesus. Or we could say that John wrote his gospel with the idea in mind that it should be read several times. This way the reader would know what John was referring to when they encountered one of these narrative disjunctions.
11:3
John tells us two important points in this verse. First, the two sisters sent word to Jesus that Lazarus was ill. Second, John tells us that Lazarus loved Jesus. This leads the reader to assume that Jesus would go and heal him.
11:4
Jesus’ response to their request presents an interesting turn in this story. Jesus says, “this sickness will not end in death.” Like Jesus’ encounter with Nicodemus, there are two levels of meaning in this story. Jesus’ discussion with Nicodemus revolved around the idea of being born a second time. Was he referring to physical rebirth or spiritual rebirth?
In this story, death is used with two levels of meaning. In one sense, Lazarus’ illness will end in his death. In a second sense, Jesus will show that for those who believe in him death is not the end of life.
11:5-6
In verse 3 we were told that Lazarus loved Jesus. Now John tells us that Jesus loved him and his sisters. “So when Jesus heard that Lazarus was ill ...” he arose and ran quickly to their side...NOT!
Instead, Jesus remained where he was for two more days. This is the second time John has told us that Jesus and this family enjoyed a very close and loving relationship. Yet Jesus appears to disregard their desperation? John is narrating this story in a way that forces the reader to wrestle with these questions.
11:7-10
Finally, Jesus decided to go up to Judea. The disciples are well aware that the closer they got to Jerusalem the more dangerous it was for Jesus. Their warning in verse 8 is designed to highlight this danger for the reader.
Jesus’ reply is in the form of a proverbial saying. If anyone walks in the light they will not stumble because they see where they are going. This creates an intertextual connection to verses 1:4-5 in John’s prologue. Jesus is the light that came into the world and the darkness can not understand or overcome the light.
The hours of the day create a second intertextual connection. This time to John 13:31. At the last supper, Judas goes out to betray Jesus. It is at this point that Jesus declares that “Now the Son of Man is glorified.” When Judas betrays Jesus the hour has finally arrived (see also: John 2:4; 4:21-23; 7:30; 8:20; 13:1; 16:21; 17:1). “Hour” also reminds the reader of Jesus’ teaching in 5:25, “Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.”
11:11-16
Sleep was a common metaphor for death in the early church (see the comments on Ephesians 5:14 from Lent A, week 4). The early church most likely picked this metaphor up from Jesus’ teachings because it is such a vivid image. Sleep in a certain sense is like death for a believer. We lay down, close our eyes, and our consciousness shuts down. Then, in the morning our brains reactivate, the neurons flicker to life, we open our eyes, and get up to face a new day. Prior to Jesus, death was like sleep in the sense that one laid down, closed their eyes, and stopped moving. People hoped that they would be raised to new life in the future (see Martha’s response to Jesus in 11:24). Jesus’ resurrection infused new meaning into this metaphor because now we actually know of someone who died, was laid in the grave, and then ‘woke up’ to new life.
Lazarus was sleeping the sleep of death. While there are other stories about people being resuscitated to life, Jesus’ raising of Lazarus is tied directly to who Jesus is and his role as the Good Shepherd. Lazarus will be woken up from death by Jesus. This is one of the central teachings in John’s gospel. Everyone will die (sleep) at some time. But for the believer, the sleep of death will be broken by Jesus’ call to wake up. And like Lazarus, they will respond to the call of the Good Shepherd, get up, and enter the dawn of a new day.
11:16-37 Martha then Mary
Notice how John weaves the Martha and Mary into this story. They are placed side by side. Both are used to communicate very similar concepts. Martha’s role is to engage in dialogue with Jesus. Mary takes the role of a supporting character to highlight Jesus’ actions.
Gospel
John 11:(1-17)18-44
An interesting aspect of this miracle is that the first 19 verses set up the miracle. Normally in John, Jesus performs a miracle and then John includes an extended discussion on the theological implications that arise from that miracle. In this text, he reverses his normal pattern. This shift in John’s narrative strategy should alert the reader to the fact that they need to give attention to “how” John is relating the story of Mary, Martha, and Lazarus.
11:1-15 Anticipation
This section sets the stage for the miracle and links this chapter with chapter 10. We need to remember that when John wrote his gospel there were no chapter divisions. If we take out these artificial divisions chapters then the unity between chapters 10 and 11 is more evident.
In chapter 10 Jesus gave his sermon on the good shepherd. Immediately after that Jesus is in Jerusalem for the Feast of Dedication. During that feast, Jesus is challenged to reveal if he was the Messiah. Jesus’ reply is evasive and so aggravates his challengers that they were ready to stone him (10:31). The dispute at the end of chapter 10 revolves around several key issues. These are: (1) Jesus being the good shepherd who gives eternal life to his sheep, (2) Jesus’ miracles are done in the Father’s name and bear witness to him, and (3) Jesus claims that “I am the Son of God.” All of these themes are central to the story of Mary, Martha, and Lazarus.
The story of the raising of Lazarus opens with an immediate note of urgency, “now a certain man was ill, Lazarus.” (11:1)
The second verse in chapter 11 does not fit the narrative context well. The way John has constructed the sentence leads the reader to assume that he was referring to an event already mentioned in John’s gospel. Grammatically, John mentions this event as if it had already taken place. However, Mary will not anoint Jesus until chapter 12. Disjunctions like this are common in John and are part of his narrative style. He expected his readers to already be familiar with the story of Mary anointing Jesus. Or we could say that John wrote his gospel with the idea in mind that it should be read several times. This way the reader would know what John was referring to when they encountered one of these narrative disjunctions.
11:3
John tells us two important points in this verse. First, the two sisters sent word to Jesus that Lazarus was ill. Second, John tells us that Lazarus loved Jesus. This leads the reader to assume that Jesus would go and heal him.
11:4
Jesus’ response to their request presents an interesting turn in this story. Jesus says, “this sickness will not end in death.” Like Jesus’ encounter with Nicodemus, there are two levels of meaning in this story. Jesus’ discussion with Nicodemus revolved around the idea of being born a second time. Was he referring to physical rebirth or spiritual rebirth?
In this story, death is used with two levels of meaning. In one sense, Lazarus’ illness will end in his death. In a second sense, Jesus will show that for those who believe in him death is not the end of life.
11:5-6
In verse 3 we were told that Lazarus loved Jesus. Now John tells us that Jesus loved him and his sisters. “So when Jesus heard that Lazarus was ill ...” he arose and ran quickly to their side...NOT!
Instead, Jesus remained where he was for two more days. This is the second time John has told us that Jesus and this family enjoyed a very close and loving relationship. Yet Jesus appears to disregard their desperation? John is narrating this story in a way that forces the reader to wrestle with these questions.
11:7-10
Finally, Jesus decided to go up to Judea. The disciples are well aware that the closer they got to Jerusalem the more dangerous it was for Jesus. Their warning in verse 8 is designed to highlight this danger for the reader.
Jesus’ reply is in the form of a proverbial saying. If anyone walks in the light they will not stumble because they see where they are going. This creates an intertextual connection to verses 1:4-5 in John’s prologue. Jesus is the light that came into the world and the darkness can not understand or overcome the light.
The hours of the day create a second intertextual connection. This time to John 13:31. At the last supper, Judas goes out to betray Jesus. It is at this point that Jesus declares that “Now the Son of Man is glorified.” When Judas betrays Jesus the hour has finally arrived (see also: John 2:4; 4:21-23; 7:30; 8:20; 13:1; 16:21; 17:1). “Hour” also reminds the reader of Jesus’ teaching in 5:25, “Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.”
11:11-16
Sleep was a common metaphor for death in the early church (see the comments on Ephesians 5:14 from Lent A, week 4). The early church most likely picked this metaphor up from Jesus’ teachings because it is such a vivid image. Sleep in a certain sense is like death for a believer. We lay down, close our eyes, and our consciousness shuts down. Then, in the morning our brains reactivate, the neurons flicker to life, we open our eyes, and get up to face a new day. Prior to Jesus, death was like sleep in the sense that one laid down, closed their eyes, and stopped moving. People hoped that they would be raised to new life in the future (see Martha’s response to Jesus in 11:24). Jesus’ resurrection infused new meaning into this metaphor because now we actually know of someone who died, was laid in the grave, and then ‘woke up’ to new life.
Lazarus was sleeping the sleep of death. While there are other stories about people being resuscitated to life, Jesus’ raising of Lazarus is tied directly to who Jesus is and his role as the Good Shepherd. Lazarus will be woken up from death by Jesus. This is one of the central teachings in John’s gospel. Everyone will die (sleep) at some time. But for the believer, the sleep of death will be broken by Jesus’ call to wake up. And like Lazarus, they will respond to the call of the Good Shepherd, get up, and enter the dawn of a new day.
11:16-37 Martha then Mary
Notice how John weaves the Martha and Mary into this story. They are placed side by side. Both are used to communicate very similar concepts. Martha’s role is to engage in dialogue with Jesus. Mary takes the role of a supporting character to highlight Jesus’ actions.
Martha |
Mary |
11:20 Martha hears Jesus is coming |
11:28 Teacher is calling for you |
11:20 Meets Jesus on the road |
11:30 meets Jesus at the same place |
11:21 “Lord, if you had been here...” |
11:23 “Lord, if you had been here...” |
11:22 Martha sees Jesus as a righteous man |
11:37-42 Jesus prays as righteous a man |
11:23ff Dialogue on resurrection and life |
11:43-44 Demonstration of resurrection |
In the introduction, I mentioned that this chapter was related to chapter 10. In verse 16-37 Jesus’ teaching on the Good Shepherd is rendered in real life. The Good Shepherd knows his sheep and calls them by name. The sheep know the shepherd’s voice and follow him. Martha heard that Jesus was coming and went to meet (11:20). After her conversation with Jesus, she goes back and tells Mary that Jesus was here and was calling for her. She jumps up and met him on the road (at the very same spot as Martha). Then, at the tomb, Jesus calls out Lazarus’ name. He arose and came out of the tomb. All three of these individuals are examples John uses to teach us about what it means to be one of Jesus’ sheep. There are two other themes that John weaves into this pericope that worth mentioning.
Theme 1: It is all Jesus’ fault.
John laid the blame for Lazarus’ death at Jesus’ feet. In verse 6 we are told that Jesus delayed for two days after learning that Lazarus was ill. In verse 11 John tells us that when Jesus finally decided to go to Bethany he already knew that Lazarus had died. Jesus even says that he was glad that he was not there to heal him (11:15). Martha tells Jesus that if he had been there her brother would have not died (11:21). In verse 32, Mary made the same accusation against Jesus. And finally, John wrote that some of the people mourning with Mary and Martha also ask why Jesus did not save Lazarus (11:37). Six times we are told that Jesus could have saved Lazarus but didn’t.
One of the main points in Rick Warren’s book “The Purpose Driven Life” is that its not about you it’s about God. Even though this small family loved Jesus and Jesus loved them he still allowed Lazarus to die. Why? Verse 15 gives us the answer. Jesus was using this situation to help others believe. Lazarus’ suffering and death were used to help ground the disciples, John’s readers, and our faith in Christ. It is about what God is doing to reach the world which is greater than Mary and Martha’s desperation and loss.
Theme 2: “I am the resurrection and the life”
The stories of Martha and Mary are two parallel stories. Martha’s encounter with Jesus is primarily one of dialogue. Mary’s encounter is filled with actions. Both teach the same point. Jesus is the resurrection and the life and one day will raise us to new life.
After Martha told Jesus that her brother died because he was not there Jesus replied that her brother will ‘rise again.’ (11:23) Martha’s reply in verse 24 reflects good Jewish theology. At the end of time, the dead will be raised, the righteous to everlasting life and the wicked to judgment.
Jesus’ reply takes that theological concept and recasts it. Jesus is “the resurrection.” In other words, the God who will raise the righteous to life at the end of time was standing right there in front of her. He closed his dialogue with her by asking, “Do you believe this?” In Matthew’s gospel, Peter makes the good confession, “You are the Christ” (Matthew 16:16). In John’s gospel Martha makes the good confession. “Yes Lord, I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God who is coming into the world!” (11:27)
When Mary met Jesus she levels the same compliant against him as Martha. But this time Jesus did not respond to her with words but was emotionally moved and asked to see the tomb. Once at the tomb, Jesus cried, “Lazarus, come out!” and Lazarus rose from the dead.
The best commentary on the story of Martha, Mary, and Lazarus is found earlier in John’s gospel:
John 5:25-29
“Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. And he has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man.
Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.” (ESV)
Theme 1: It is all Jesus’ fault.
John laid the blame for Lazarus’ death at Jesus’ feet. In verse 6 we are told that Jesus delayed for two days after learning that Lazarus was ill. In verse 11 John tells us that when Jesus finally decided to go to Bethany he already knew that Lazarus had died. Jesus even says that he was glad that he was not there to heal him (11:15). Martha tells Jesus that if he had been there her brother would have not died (11:21). In verse 32, Mary made the same accusation against Jesus. And finally, John wrote that some of the people mourning with Mary and Martha also ask why Jesus did not save Lazarus (11:37). Six times we are told that Jesus could have saved Lazarus but didn’t.
One of the main points in Rick Warren’s book “The Purpose Driven Life” is that its not about you it’s about God. Even though this small family loved Jesus and Jesus loved them he still allowed Lazarus to die. Why? Verse 15 gives us the answer. Jesus was using this situation to help others believe. Lazarus’ suffering and death were used to help ground the disciples, John’s readers, and our faith in Christ. It is about what God is doing to reach the world which is greater than Mary and Martha’s desperation and loss.
Theme 2: “I am the resurrection and the life”
The stories of Martha and Mary are two parallel stories. Martha’s encounter with Jesus is primarily one of dialogue. Mary’s encounter is filled with actions. Both teach the same point. Jesus is the resurrection and the life and one day will raise us to new life.
After Martha told Jesus that her brother died because he was not there Jesus replied that her brother will ‘rise again.’ (11:23) Martha’s reply in verse 24 reflects good Jewish theology. At the end of time, the dead will be raised, the righteous to everlasting life and the wicked to judgment.
Jesus’ reply takes that theological concept and recasts it. Jesus is “the resurrection.” In other words, the God who will raise the righteous to life at the end of time was standing right there in front of her. He closed his dialogue with her by asking, “Do you believe this?” In Matthew’s gospel, Peter makes the good confession, “You are the Christ” (Matthew 16:16). In John’s gospel Martha makes the good confession. “Yes Lord, I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God who is coming into the world!” (11:27)
When Mary met Jesus she levels the same compliant against him as Martha. But this time Jesus did not respond to her with words but was emotionally moved and asked to see the tomb. Once at the tomb, Jesus cried, “Lazarus, come out!” and Lazarus rose from the dead.
The best commentary on the story of Martha, Mary, and Lazarus is found earlier in John’s gospel:
John 5:25-29
“Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. And he has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man.
Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.” (ESV)
Fifth Sunday of Lent A
Old Testament
Ezekiel 37:1-14 — Valley of Dry Bones
Israel was without a king, a land, or a temple. They were a ‘dead’ people. In the midst of this time of national despair, Ezekiel prophesied that Israel would return to the promised land and God would resurrect them as a people once again.
The reader must go back to the previous chapter to understand God’s promise to regather his people. The reason why the house of Israel was scattered among the nations was because they profaned the name of the Lord (36:22). God’s judgment upon them was not primarily because of their sin. God acted in this manner to protect “his holy name” and to make his name known among the nations (36:22-23).
In the same breath that God uttered this judgment he also promised that he would regather his people in the future (36:24). When God regathers his people he will cleanse them from their sins. Their cities will be rebuilt. And the countryside will be replanted (36:33-38). Most importantly Israel’s heart will be turned toward God, his Spirit will reside in them, and they “will know that I am the Lord.” (36:38) To offer encouragement to the Babylonian exiles, Ezekiel concluded this oracle with an apocalyptic vision (37:1-14).
Ezekiel 37 is an apocalyptic vision of Israel’s regathering. Israel would have been exposed to Mesopotamian dream-visions and other apocalyptic forms of texts during the Babylonian exile. Ezekiel and other Jewish prophets adapted this genre of literature into their theological repertoire (see Daniel’s visions for other examples). Apocalyptic texts were normally written during periods when the prophet’s audience was experiencing oppressive conditions. The theological emphasis of an apocalyptic vision is not on what God will do in the distant future. Rather, the thrust of an apocalyptic text is to give hope in the midst of suffering. They are characterized by their use of sensational and spectacular imagery.
The apocalyptic vision in Ezekiel 37 has two distinct sections. First, Ezekiel recounted his vision of the valley of dry bones in vv.3-10. Second, he concluded his vision by offering an interpretation in vv.11-14.
First section: 37:1-10
The vision opens with a horrific scene. Ezekiel is brought by the Lord (we are not told how) to a valley filled with dry bones (37:1). Dead bodies were considered sacred in the Ancient Near East. The idea of leaving human bodies to rot in the open for birds to eat was repugnant to every one of the nations and religions during that time. The only time bodies would lie about in such massive numbers would have been after the carnage of a great battle. In a few instances, the bodies of a defeated enemy were not buried as a way to further humiliate that nation. In this way, Ezekiel’s vision ties in with 36:18 where God says, “I poured out my wrath upon them for the blood that they had shed in the land, for the idols with which they had defiled it.” (ESV) It is a vision that conveys the idea that God has decimated Israel and left their bodies to rot in the field.
Ezekiel was asked by God whether these bones would live (v. 3a). Ezekiel acknowledged his lack of omniscience and replied that only the Lord knew (v. 3b). God then instructed Ezekiel to prophesy over the dry bones. God would grow tendons, flesh, and skin over the remains of these corpses and then give breath (ַר֖וּח, ruach) to these bodies. The punchline to this vision is that this “resurrected” people would know that God was the Lord (v. 6).
Ezekiel did as the Lord commanded and proclaimed the Lord’s words over the dead, dry bones. In one of the most dramatic passages in the Bible, the bones came together and grew tendons, flesh, and skin. But they were still dead bodies (vv.7-8). They were not alive because they did not have breath or a spirit (the Hebrew ַר֖וּח, ruach means ‘breath, wind’ or ‘spirit’). The emphasis on spirit/breath in this passage (ַר֖וּח, ruach is used 3 times in verse 9) may be an allusion to Genesis 2:7 where Adam was fully formed by God but was not alive until God breathed (ַר֖וּח, ruach) into him.
Ezekiel was instructed to prophesy for a second time. This time for the breath/wind to come from the four winds and give life to these slain bodies (v.9). The result was a vision of a great army getting up off the ground and standing up.
Ezekiel’s prophecy is an astonishing vision of Israel’s ultimate restoration (vv.4-8). But more importantly, it is a vision of Israel’s spiritual renewal (vv.9-10).
Second section: 37:11-14
Ezekiel’s vision portrays the restoration of a people who had been “dead.” This restoration took place in two stages: (1) physical (or national) restoration and (2) spiritual renewal.
Israel spent close to 70 years as slaves in exile. Many of them had probably lost all hope. So the vision of the valley of dry bones was very appropriate metaphor for Israel’s situation. This vision was meant to convey hope in the most dramatic manner possible. Israel would be restored to their land and spiritually revived. This would not come about through their efforts. Israel was incapable of any action because they were like the remains of bodies scattered on a battle field. Rather, God would act to free them from captivity, lead them back to the promised land, and revive their trust in him.
Old Testament
Ezekiel 37:1-14 — Valley of Dry Bones
Israel was without a king, a land, or a temple. They were a ‘dead’ people. In the midst of this time of national despair, Ezekiel prophesied that Israel would return to the promised land and God would resurrect them as a people once again.
The reader must go back to the previous chapter to understand God’s promise to regather his people. The reason why the house of Israel was scattered among the nations was because they profaned the name of the Lord (36:22). God’s judgment upon them was not primarily because of their sin. God acted in this manner to protect “his holy name” and to make his name known among the nations (36:22-23).
In the same breath that God uttered this judgment he also promised that he would regather his people in the future (36:24). When God regathers his people he will cleanse them from their sins. Their cities will be rebuilt. And the countryside will be replanted (36:33-38). Most importantly Israel’s heart will be turned toward God, his Spirit will reside in them, and they “will know that I am the Lord.” (36:38) To offer encouragement to the Babylonian exiles, Ezekiel concluded this oracle with an apocalyptic vision (37:1-14).
Ezekiel 37 is an apocalyptic vision of Israel’s regathering. Israel would have been exposed to Mesopotamian dream-visions and other apocalyptic forms of texts during the Babylonian exile. Ezekiel and other Jewish prophets adapted this genre of literature into their theological repertoire (see Daniel’s visions for other examples). Apocalyptic texts were normally written during periods when the prophet’s audience was experiencing oppressive conditions. The theological emphasis of an apocalyptic vision is not on what God will do in the distant future. Rather, the thrust of an apocalyptic text is to give hope in the midst of suffering. They are characterized by their use of sensational and spectacular imagery.
The apocalyptic vision in Ezekiel 37 has two distinct sections. First, Ezekiel recounted his vision of the valley of dry bones in vv.3-10. Second, he concluded his vision by offering an interpretation in vv.11-14.
First section: 37:1-10
The vision opens with a horrific scene. Ezekiel is brought by the Lord (we are not told how) to a valley filled with dry bones (37:1). Dead bodies were considered sacred in the Ancient Near East. The idea of leaving human bodies to rot in the open for birds to eat was repugnant to every one of the nations and religions during that time. The only time bodies would lie about in such massive numbers would have been after the carnage of a great battle. In a few instances, the bodies of a defeated enemy were not buried as a way to further humiliate that nation. In this way, Ezekiel’s vision ties in with 36:18 where God says, “I poured out my wrath upon them for the blood that they had shed in the land, for the idols with which they had defiled it.” (ESV) It is a vision that conveys the idea that God has decimated Israel and left their bodies to rot in the field.
Ezekiel was asked by God whether these bones would live (v. 3a). Ezekiel acknowledged his lack of omniscience and replied that only the Lord knew (v. 3b). God then instructed Ezekiel to prophesy over the dry bones. God would grow tendons, flesh, and skin over the remains of these corpses and then give breath (ַר֖וּח, ruach) to these bodies. The punchline to this vision is that this “resurrected” people would know that God was the Lord (v. 6).
Ezekiel did as the Lord commanded and proclaimed the Lord’s words over the dead, dry bones. In one of the most dramatic passages in the Bible, the bones came together and grew tendons, flesh, and skin. But they were still dead bodies (vv.7-8). They were not alive because they did not have breath or a spirit (the Hebrew ַר֖וּח, ruach means ‘breath, wind’ or ‘spirit’). The emphasis on spirit/breath in this passage (ַר֖וּח, ruach is used 3 times in verse 9) may be an allusion to Genesis 2:7 where Adam was fully formed by God but was not alive until God breathed (ַר֖וּח, ruach) into him.
Ezekiel was instructed to prophesy for a second time. This time for the breath/wind to come from the four winds and give life to these slain bodies (v.9). The result was a vision of a great army getting up off the ground and standing up.
Ezekiel’s prophecy is an astonishing vision of Israel’s ultimate restoration (vv.4-8). But more importantly, it is a vision of Israel’s spiritual renewal (vv.9-10).
Second section: 37:11-14
Ezekiel’s vision portrays the restoration of a people who had been “dead.” This restoration took place in two stages: (1) physical (or national) restoration and (2) spiritual renewal.
Israel spent close to 70 years as slaves in exile. Many of them had probably lost all hope. So the vision of the valley of dry bones was very appropriate metaphor for Israel’s situation. This vision was meant to convey hope in the most dramatic manner possible. Israel would be restored to their land and spiritually revived. This would not come about through their efforts. Israel was incapable of any action because they were like the remains of bodies scattered on a battle field. Rather, God would act to free them from captivity, lead them back to the promised land, and revive their trust in him.
Fifth Sunday of Lent A
Psalm 130
Psalm 130 was placed in the Psalms entitled Songs of Ascent. These were sung by pilgrims either trudging up the long roads that led up to Jerusalem or they were sung when entering the temple. In either case, these were songs that were written to prepare a person’s heart for worship in the temple.
In verses 1-2 the psalmist cries out to God from “deep waters” (NET) or “the depths” (ESV). For someone to be ‘down’ is universally a bad thing across all languages. ,מַעֲמַקִּים .In this case, the person is not just ‘down’ but in a deep, dark, place (Heb maʿamaqqiym, this is used in only two other Psalms and always with a connotation of someone in profound distress: Ps 69:2, 14). Ezekiel’s audience (in Ez 37) would have readily identified with this term to describe their situation. This Psalm is applicable for a wide range of situations because the reader is not told what type of distress the petitioner is in.
3-4 Trusting in God’s forgiveness.
Two contrasting ideas are placed side by side. The first concerns God’s righteousness. Were he to keep record of our sins no one could stand before him. The second is that God forgives. The word for ‘forgiveness’ (Heb סְלִיחָה, seliyḥāh) is used only three times in the Hebrew scriptures. In this text, Nehemiah 9:17 and Daniel 9:9. In each instance, ‘forgiveness’ is not something God does but is an attribute of his.
5-6 Waiting for the Lord.
The idea of ‘waiting for the Lord’ is mentioned three times in these two verses. In verse 5, the Hebrew word וָהקָ (qawah) is used twice and is translated as ‘waits’ (ESV, NIV, NASB, and NRSV). In verse 6 this verb is not in the Hebrew text but is implied and most English translations supply a verb related to it. Psalmist’s ‘wait’ is compared to a watchman on a city wall. They ‘wait’ for the morning to be relieved of their duty. The watchman’s wait is also related to knowing that the city has made it safely through another dark and dangerous night. Like the opening line, where the Psalmist cried out form the ‘depths,’ now they wait for the morning’s rays like a watchman in the darkness of night.
7-8 Hope in the Lord.
The Psalm shifts now from a personal petition to a corporate one. All of Israel is exhorted to hope in the Lord. Why? In verse 4 we were told that there is ‘forgiveness’ with God. In this verse, three more reasons are given. First, just as there is forgiveness with God so also is there ‘steadfast love.’ The Hebrew here is חֶסֶד (ḥeseḏ, used close to 250 times in the Hebrew Scriptures) which refers to God’s unfailing love or God’s love based his covenant relationship with Israel. Second, there is ‘plentiful redemption’ with God. God’s steadfast love and abundant redemption are gifts that God has bestowed upon Israel. They are not based on who Israel is because in verse 3 the Psalmist told us that if God considered our sins none of us could stand before him. And finally, the Psalm closes on a positive note of trust in who God is. Israel will be redeemed from all their iniquities.
Psalm 130
Psalm 130 was placed in the Psalms entitled Songs of Ascent. These were sung by pilgrims either trudging up the long roads that led up to Jerusalem or they were sung when entering the temple. In either case, these were songs that were written to prepare a person’s heart for worship in the temple.
In verses 1-2 the psalmist cries out to God from “deep waters” (NET) or “the depths” (ESV). For someone to be ‘down’ is universally a bad thing across all languages. ,מַעֲמַקִּים .In this case, the person is not just ‘down’ but in a deep, dark, place (Heb maʿamaqqiym, this is used in only two other Psalms and always with a connotation of someone in profound distress: Ps 69:2, 14). Ezekiel’s audience (in Ez 37) would have readily identified with this term to describe their situation. This Psalm is applicable for a wide range of situations because the reader is not told what type of distress the petitioner is in.
3-4 Trusting in God’s forgiveness.
Two contrasting ideas are placed side by side. The first concerns God’s righteousness. Were he to keep record of our sins no one could stand before him. The second is that God forgives. The word for ‘forgiveness’ (Heb סְלִיחָה, seliyḥāh) is used only three times in the Hebrew scriptures. In this text, Nehemiah 9:17 and Daniel 9:9. In each instance, ‘forgiveness’ is not something God does but is an attribute of his.
5-6 Waiting for the Lord.
The idea of ‘waiting for the Lord’ is mentioned three times in these two verses. In verse 5, the Hebrew word וָהקָ (qawah) is used twice and is translated as ‘waits’ (ESV, NIV, NASB, and NRSV). In verse 6 this verb is not in the Hebrew text but is implied and most English translations supply a verb related to it. Psalmist’s ‘wait’ is compared to a watchman on a city wall. They ‘wait’ for the morning to be relieved of their duty. The watchman’s wait is also related to knowing that the city has made it safely through another dark and dangerous night. Like the opening line, where the Psalmist cried out form the ‘depths,’ now they wait for the morning’s rays like a watchman in the darkness of night.
7-8 Hope in the Lord.
The Psalm shifts now from a personal petition to a corporate one. All of Israel is exhorted to hope in the Lord. Why? In verse 4 we were told that there is ‘forgiveness’ with God. In this verse, three more reasons are given. First, just as there is forgiveness with God so also is there ‘steadfast love.’ The Hebrew here is חֶסֶד (ḥeseḏ, used close to 250 times in the Hebrew Scriptures) which refers to God’s unfailing love or God’s love based his covenant relationship with Israel. Second, there is ‘plentiful redemption’ with God. God’s steadfast love and abundant redemption are gifts that God has bestowed upon Israel. They are not based on who Israel is because in verse 3 the Psalmist told us that if God considered our sins none of us could stand before him. And finally, the Psalm closes on a positive note of trust in who God is. Israel will be redeemed from all their iniquities.
Holy Week
Palm Sunday Lent A
Old Testament
Isaiah 52:13-53:12
This is the fourth of the “servant songs” in Isaiah. This is a rather dark passage in that the main character, “my servant” is disfigured, rejected, wounded, crushed, and slaughtered. The dating of this passage appears to towards the end of the Jewish captivity in Babylon. A remnant of the people have been allowed to return home and begin rebuilding Jerusalem in the midst of harsh opposition (see Ezra 3:1-13 and Zechariah 1-8). The identity of the ‘suffering servant’ is Isaiah 53 has been debated through the centuries. Acts 8:34 even preserves a snippet of this text’s interpretive debate. “And the eunuch said to Philip, ‘About whom, I ask you, does the prophet say this, about himself or about someone else?’” (Acts 8:34 ESV) Jewish scholars identified this servant with a Jewish leader (perhaps Zerubbabel) or the nation of Israel during Isaiah’s time. In more recent years, some scholars, have linked the servant’s suffering with the tragedy of the Holocaust. Christian scholars have tended to read this passage as a prophecy about Jesus. This trajectory started in the early church. Isaiah 53 was perhaps the most cited passage from the Hebrew scriptures in the New Testament. Portions of Isaiah 53 are cited in Matthew 8; Luke 22; Acts 8, Romans 10, 15; and 1 Peter 2.
Structure
This passage is neatly divided into 5 stanzas each with 6 lines. It is organized according to a chiastic pattern. In a chiastic structure, the outer stanzas (A and A’) share similar content. The same with the second and penultimate stanzas (B and B’). All of this revolves around a central stanza (though a central stanza may not be present).
A) The Servant’s Exaltation (52:13-15)
B) The Servant’s Rejection (53:1-3)
C) The Servant’s Suffering (53:4-6)
B’) The Servant’s Rejection (53:7-9)
A’) The Servant’s Exaltation (53:10-12)
A) The Servant’s Exaltation (52:13-15)
This song opens with the prophet speaking for God, “Look, my servant will succeed.” The Hebrew interjection הִנֵּה (hinneh, used over 1000 times in the OT) can be translated as “behold!” This interjection demands attention and forces the reader to be alert to what is about to follow. “My servant shall act wisely (or prosper).” This is followed by three synonyms that emphasize the future exaltation of this servant. This servant will “be high,” “lifted up,” and “be exalted.” All three verbs share a similar connotation of being lifted up or made high.
This song takes an unexpected twist immediately after its emphatic statement about the servant’s exaltation (52:14). People will be appalled at him and he will be marred beyond human appearance. Verse 14 does not seem to follow the thrust of verse 13. It appears to contradict the previous verse. How can someone who is lifted up and exalted be marred beyond human resemblance?
The enigmatic nature of this passage is important to keep in mind. The author challenges to our theological preconceptions throughout this passage. For example, in the verse just discussed we are forced to wrestle with the conflicting ideas of someone being exalted and marred beyond human resemblance at the same time. All too often Christians read this passage from the perspective of the New Testament. As a result, we immediately assume that this passage is a prophecy about Jesus and read it as just that. To view this as a prophecy about Christ is not an issue. The problem comes in that it domesticates the challenging nature of this song’s message. We gloss over how the author forces us to reconsider our preconceptions about what it means to be God’s servant and how the divine perspective is 180 degrees counter to that. By recapturing the provocative nature of this text it not only helps us to understand Isaiah 53 better but also how this informs our understanding of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.
Verse 15 presents more difficulties for the interpreter. Compare the KJV “so shall he sprinkle many nations” to the NRSV’s (JPS and NET also) “so he shall startle many nations.” The Hebrew verb used here is rather ambiguous and could be interpreted in either of these ways. Given that this passage is talking about the shocking appearance of the servant the idea of “startling many nations” may be more contextually appropriate.
There is also the question as to why the “kings” will be silent (shut their mouths). On the one hand, the kings may be silent because they are “startled” by the servant’s appearance. On the other hand, they might be quiet because they are not impressed by the servant.
B) The Servant’s Rejection (53:1-3)
53:1 Chapter 53 opens with a rhetorical question that forces the reader to reconsider 52:13-15. How can this servant go from prosperity to suffering to exaltation? How can God bless someone, punish them severely, and then exalt them? Especially when this individual is singled out as“my servant”?
Who are the “who” (plural) in this verse? “Who has believed what we heard?” Is this the prophet, Israel, or Gentiles? We are not told. How we answer that question will shape how we read this verse. The key point is that very few have believed their message.
The second question is thought-provoking as well, “To whom was the Lord’s arm revealed through him?” In the first question the prophet asked who has believed what they heard. There is a shift from a message that was heard to a manifestation of God’s power (his arm) in this question.
53:2 If the previous verse ended with a question about the revelation of God’s power this verse reverses our expectations again. Instead of continuing with the idea of God’s strong arm we are now presented with an image of a twig sprouting up. Not exactly an image of power or strength. Instead, this verse focuses on the servant’s unassuming attributes. He is like a sapling growing in dry ground. ‘Dry ground’ is most likely a reference to a desert plant. Plants that are not known for their beauty but more for their ability to survive in a harsh environment. An unattractive sapling that may not attract a second look.
Even though this song opens with God telling us to ‘behold’ (52:13) his servant, the point here is that, from a human perspective, most will overlook the servant.
53:3 Verse 3 continues to develop the thought from verse 2. The perspective shifts from the failure to notice the servant to despising and rejecting him. The words translated “sorrows” and “suffering” can also be translated as “pains” and “sickness.”
In 52:3 three verbs were used in succession to emphasize the servant would be exalted.
In 53:3 The author employs five verbs that emphasize the servant’s rejection. He will be “despised,” “rejected,” “from whom men hid their faces,” “despised,” and “considered insignificant.” The references to “experienced pain” and “illness” in the middle of these five verbs create the impression that people were averting their eyes from him because he was severely ill (perhaps alluding to the idea that his illness was visible to the naked eye).
The idea that the servant is severely ill will be reversed in the first stanza in the next verse. This is a key feature of this song. As we read this passage we are lead to assume one idea (the servant is very sick) only to have that very idea subverter in the next line. The zig-zagging logic of this passage forces the reader to wrestle with its message. Who is this servant? How can they be exalted and rejected?
C) The Servant’s Suffering (53:4-6)
The central section of this song is characterized by several features. On the one hand, first-person, plural pronouns are primarily used in this section. This underlines the reader’s identification with the servant’s suffering. “He carried our pain.” On the other hand, the author describes the servant’s sufferings with several different verbs. These verbs are then either directly or indirectly related to the readers’ sins and iniquities.
This creates a theological paradox. According to the Mosaic Covenant, God would strike the Israelites with various illnesses if they were disobedient to his covenant. The language in 53:4 paints the picture that God has done just that. The reader is lead to assume that the servant had been disobedient to God and was being punished by him.
This is the conclusion that the onlookers in 54:4b reach, “we thought he as being punished.” Once again, the reader is forced to ask, “how can this person be struck down by God and yet be God’s servant?”
53:5 The metaphorical language shifts from disease (God’s discipline) to physical punishments. “By his wounds (חָלַל, ḥālal, to be pierced, our wounded) we are healed.” All too often this is read literally. The “servant’s” wounds literally heal us of our physical injuries or bodily illnesses. However, in the context of this song, the emphasis is on the substitutionary punishment for sins. This can be seen in the nouns used in this passage: transgressions and iniquities (vs 5), iniquity (6), transgressions (8), wicked (9), guilt (10), iniquities (11), transgressors (2x in v. 12) and sin (12). The servant bears the punishment or God’s judgment for the readers’ transgressions.
The final stanza of this section contains another metaphorical shift (53:6). From illness and physical punishment to sacrificial language. The wording used in 53:6 seems to be taken from passages like Leviticus 16:21-22 (where the lamb sacrificed on the Day of Atonement is described).
B’) The Servant’s Rejection (53:7-9)
Verses 7-9 parallel the ideas in verse 1-3 and return to the theme of the servant’s rejection. The servant’s silent submission is the focus of verse 7. The comparison to a sheep does not necessarily suggest a sacrificial metaphor. Sheep were slaughtered for food as well as for sacrificial rituals, and טָבַח (tevakh) need not refer to sacrificial slaughter. However, given the repeated references to sin and transgression in this passage the sacrificial use of this term is most likely in play. The ‘servant’ will give his life like a sacrificial lamb.
The irony of verse 8 is that a ‘perversion of justice’ takes place. The innocent servant is cut off from the land of the living (a reference to death or being banished like a leper). However, the servant is perceived as the guilty party but in reality his people are. The servant is stricken for the transgression of ‘his people.’
There is yet another strange contrast in 53:8b-9. The servant, who appears to be cursed by God, has suffered and been killed. Someone (“they” in the text does not specify who it is) intends to bury the servant with the wicked. Given that this servant will appear to be judged and struck down by God this would be the logical conclusion. They would be buried with other common criminals.
But this is where the contrast comes in. The servant will be buried with the rich. There are two contrasts between these lines. First, there is the contrast between criminal and rich. Second, there is a contrast between the plural (criminals) and singular (rich person). The juxtaposition of these two ideas “wicked” and “rich” forces the reader to wrestle with what the prophet is saying. It is a riddle that must be solved. From one perspective, the servant will be perceived as a sinner judged by God. From another perspective, he will be esteemed and blessed because he is identified with a ‘rich person’ in his burial.
A’) The Servant’s Exaltation (53:10-12)
Lest the reader misses the puzzle presented in this passage, the prophet begins to wrap up this song by taking us back the central question, “Behold my servant, he shall act wisely.” (52:13) Only this time the opposite idea is presented. “It was the will of the Lord to crush him” (53:10) How do we go from the servant being “wise” in 52:13 to “crushed” by God in this verse?
The answer is put forward in the concluding verses of this song. It was God’s will to crush the servant. The “will of the Lord” bookends this verse and helps the reader to unravel the enigma of this song. From a human perspective, this will appear to be an act of divine judgment against that servant’s sins. However, that misses the divine perspective that the servant was suffering for others, not his transgressions. Because the servant was obedient to the divine will (he exercised Godly wisdom) God will vindicate him. God “ shall prolong his days” and “the will of the Lord shall prosper his hand.”
53:11 The song now shifts to the perspective of the suffering servant. Having gone through the suffering he now looks back on, or reflects on his role and is satisfied. Why? because like a sacrificial lamb he has acquitted many (53:11c).
“My servant” ties the end of this song back to the opening line in 52:13.
53:12 Sums up the song. In the first 2 lines of verse 12, God will reward the Servant for his faithfulness. The prophet uses two images taken from warfare. First, God is portrayed as a victorious king who led his troops into battle. With the victory secure, God then portions out the spoils to his fighters. The servant is one among God’s forces that receive a portion of the spoils. The metaphorical image is mixed when we move to the second idea. Second, the servant is now portrayed as dividing the spoils among his forces. Once again we have a puzzle. How can the servant who fought for the king now be the one taking the royal prerogative and deciding who gets what after the battle?
The final four lines of verse 12 explain why the servant assumed the role of a king. It is because the servant submitted to death, was perceived as a rebel (this could be a reference to the army vanquished in this verse), and intervened on behalf of the rebels.
John Olley writes, “Yahweh has won the victory and vindicates his Servant, giving to him many subservient people, together with their spoils. These numerous peoples in turn receive blessing, sharing in the “peace” resulting from Yahweh’s victory and the Servant’s suffering” (John W. Olley, “‘The Many’: How Is Isa 53, 12a to Be Understood,” Bib 68 [1987]: 330-56).
Old Testament
Isaiah 52:13-53:12
This is the fourth of the “servant songs” in Isaiah. This is a rather dark passage in that the main character, “my servant” is disfigured, rejected, wounded, crushed, and slaughtered. The dating of this passage appears to towards the end of the Jewish captivity in Babylon. A remnant of the people have been allowed to return home and begin rebuilding Jerusalem in the midst of harsh opposition (see Ezra 3:1-13 and Zechariah 1-8). The identity of the ‘suffering servant’ is Isaiah 53 has been debated through the centuries. Acts 8:34 even preserves a snippet of this text’s interpretive debate. “And the eunuch said to Philip, ‘About whom, I ask you, does the prophet say this, about himself or about someone else?’” (Acts 8:34 ESV) Jewish scholars identified this servant with a Jewish leader (perhaps Zerubbabel) or the nation of Israel during Isaiah’s time. In more recent years, some scholars, have linked the servant’s suffering with the tragedy of the Holocaust. Christian scholars have tended to read this passage as a prophecy about Jesus. This trajectory started in the early church. Isaiah 53 was perhaps the most cited passage from the Hebrew scriptures in the New Testament. Portions of Isaiah 53 are cited in Matthew 8; Luke 22; Acts 8, Romans 10, 15; and 1 Peter 2.
Structure
This passage is neatly divided into 5 stanzas each with 6 lines. It is organized according to a chiastic pattern. In a chiastic structure, the outer stanzas (A and A’) share similar content. The same with the second and penultimate stanzas (B and B’). All of this revolves around a central stanza (though a central stanza may not be present).
A) The Servant’s Exaltation (52:13-15)
B) The Servant’s Rejection (53:1-3)
C) The Servant’s Suffering (53:4-6)
B’) The Servant’s Rejection (53:7-9)
A’) The Servant’s Exaltation (53:10-12)
A) The Servant’s Exaltation (52:13-15)
This song opens with the prophet speaking for God, “Look, my servant will succeed.” The Hebrew interjection הִנֵּה (hinneh, used over 1000 times in the OT) can be translated as “behold!” This interjection demands attention and forces the reader to be alert to what is about to follow. “My servant shall act wisely (or prosper).” This is followed by three synonyms that emphasize the future exaltation of this servant. This servant will “be high,” “lifted up,” and “be exalted.” All three verbs share a similar connotation of being lifted up or made high.
This song takes an unexpected twist immediately after its emphatic statement about the servant’s exaltation (52:14). People will be appalled at him and he will be marred beyond human appearance. Verse 14 does not seem to follow the thrust of verse 13. It appears to contradict the previous verse. How can someone who is lifted up and exalted be marred beyond human resemblance?
The enigmatic nature of this passage is important to keep in mind. The author challenges to our theological preconceptions throughout this passage. For example, in the verse just discussed we are forced to wrestle with the conflicting ideas of someone being exalted and marred beyond human resemblance at the same time. All too often Christians read this passage from the perspective of the New Testament. As a result, we immediately assume that this passage is a prophecy about Jesus and read it as just that. To view this as a prophecy about Christ is not an issue. The problem comes in that it domesticates the challenging nature of this song’s message. We gloss over how the author forces us to reconsider our preconceptions about what it means to be God’s servant and how the divine perspective is 180 degrees counter to that. By recapturing the provocative nature of this text it not only helps us to understand Isaiah 53 better but also how this informs our understanding of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.
Verse 15 presents more difficulties for the interpreter. Compare the KJV “so shall he sprinkle many nations” to the NRSV’s (JPS and NET also) “so he shall startle many nations.” The Hebrew verb used here is rather ambiguous and could be interpreted in either of these ways. Given that this passage is talking about the shocking appearance of the servant the idea of “startling many nations” may be more contextually appropriate.
There is also the question as to why the “kings” will be silent (shut their mouths). On the one hand, the kings may be silent because they are “startled” by the servant’s appearance. On the other hand, they might be quiet because they are not impressed by the servant.
B) The Servant’s Rejection (53:1-3)
53:1 Chapter 53 opens with a rhetorical question that forces the reader to reconsider 52:13-15. How can this servant go from prosperity to suffering to exaltation? How can God bless someone, punish them severely, and then exalt them? Especially when this individual is singled out as“my servant”?
Who are the “who” (plural) in this verse? “Who has believed what we heard?” Is this the prophet, Israel, or Gentiles? We are not told. How we answer that question will shape how we read this verse. The key point is that very few have believed their message.
The second question is thought-provoking as well, “To whom was the Lord’s arm revealed through him?” In the first question the prophet asked who has believed what they heard. There is a shift from a message that was heard to a manifestation of God’s power (his arm) in this question.
53:2 If the previous verse ended with a question about the revelation of God’s power this verse reverses our expectations again. Instead of continuing with the idea of God’s strong arm we are now presented with an image of a twig sprouting up. Not exactly an image of power or strength. Instead, this verse focuses on the servant’s unassuming attributes. He is like a sapling growing in dry ground. ‘Dry ground’ is most likely a reference to a desert plant. Plants that are not known for their beauty but more for their ability to survive in a harsh environment. An unattractive sapling that may not attract a second look.
Even though this song opens with God telling us to ‘behold’ (52:13) his servant, the point here is that, from a human perspective, most will overlook the servant.
53:3 Verse 3 continues to develop the thought from verse 2. The perspective shifts from the failure to notice the servant to despising and rejecting him. The words translated “sorrows” and “suffering” can also be translated as “pains” and “sickness.”
In 52:3 three verbs were used in succession to emphasize the servant would be exalted.
In 53:3 The author employs five verbs that emphasize the servant’s rejection. He will be “despised,” “rejected,” “from whom men hid their faces,” “despised,” and “considered insignificant.” The references to “experienced pain” and “illness” in the middle of these five verbs create the impression that people were averting their eyes from him because he was severely ill (perhaps alluding to the idea that his illness was visible to the naked eye).
The idea that the servant is severely ill will be reversed in the first stanza in the next verse. This is a key feature of this song. As we read this passage we are lead to assume one idea (the servant is very sick) only to have that very idea subverter in the next line. The zig-zagging logic of this passage forces the reader to wrestle with its message. Who is this servant? How can they be exalted and rejected?
C) The Servant’s Suffering (53:4-6)
The central section of this song is characterized by several features. On the one hand, first-person, plural pronouns are primarily used in this section. This underlines the reader’s identification with the servant’s suffering. “He carried our pain.” On the other hand, the author describes the servant’s sufferings with several different verbs. These verbs are then either directly or indirectly related to the readers’ sins and iniquities.
This creates a theological paradox. According to the Mosaic Covenant, God would strike the Israelites with various illnesses if they were disobedient to his covenant. The language in 53:4 paints the picture that God has done just that. The reader is lead to assume that the servant had been disobedient to God and was being punished by him.
This is the conclusion that the onlookers in 54:4b reach, “we thought he as being punished.” Once again, the reader is forced to ask, “how can this person be struck down by God and yet be God’s servant?”
53:5 The metaphorical language shifts from disease (God’s discipline) to physical punishments. “By his wounds (חָלַל, ḥālal, to be pierced, our wounded) we are healed.” All too often this is read literally. The “servant’s” wounds literally heal us of our physical injuries or bodily illnesses. However, in the context of this song, the emphasis is on the substitutionary punishment for sins. This can be seen in the nouns used in this passage: transgressions and iniquities (vs 5), iniquity (6), transgressions (8), wicked (9), guilt (10), iniquities (11), transgressors (2x in v. 12) and sin (12). The servant bears the punishment or God’s judgment for the readers’ transgressions.
The final stanza of this section contains another metaphorical shift (53:6). From illness and physical punishment to sacrificial language. The wording used in 53:6 seems to be taken from passages like Leviticus 16:21-22 (where the lamb sacrificed on the Day of Atonement is described).
B’) The Servant’s Rejection (53:7-9)
Verses 7-9 parallel the ideas in verse 1-3 and return to the theme of the servant’s rejection. The servant’s silent submission is the focus of verse 7. The comparison to a sheep does not necessarily suggest a sacrificial metaphor. Sheep were slaughtered for food as well as for sacrificial rituals, and טָבַח (tevakh) need not refer to sacrificial slaughter. However, given the repeated references to sin and transgression in this passage the sacrificial use of this term is most likely in play. The ‘servant’ will give his life like a sacrificial lamb.
The irony of verse 8 is that a ‘perversion of justice’ takes place. The innocent servant is cut off from the land of the living (a reference to death or being banished like a leper). However, the servant is perceived as the guilty party but in reality his people are. The servant is stricken for the transgression of ‘his people.’
There is yet another strange contrast in 53:8b-9. The servant, who appears to be cursed by God, has suffered and been killed. Someone (“they” in the text does not specify who it is) intends to bury the servant with the wicked. Given that this servant will appear to be judged and struck down by God this would be the logical conclusion. They would be buried with other common criminals.
But this is where the contrast comes in. The servant will be buried with the rich. There are two contrasts between these lines. First, there is the contrast between criminal and rich. Second, there is a contrast between the plural (criminals) and singular (rich person). The juxtaposition of these two ideas “wicked” and “rich” forces the reader to wrestle with what the prophet is saying. It is a riddle that must be solved. From one perspective, the servant will be perceived as a sinner judged by God. From another perspective, he will be esteemed and blessed because he is identified with a ‘rich person’ in his burial.
A’) The Servant’s Exaltation (53:10-12)
Lest the reader misses the puzzle presented in this passage, the prophet begins to wrap up this song by taking us back the central question, “Behold my servant, he shall act wisely.” (52:13) Only this time the opposite idea is presented. “It was the will of the Lord to crush him” (53:10) How do we go from the servant being “wise” in 52:13 to “crushed” by God in this verse?
The answer is put forward in the concluding verses of this song. It was God’s will to crush the servant. The “will of the Lord” bookends this verse and helps the reader to unravel the enigma of this song. From a human perspective, this will appear to be an act of divine judgment against that servant’s sins. However, that misses the divine perspective that the servant was suffering for others, not his transgressions. Because the servant was obedient to the divine will (he exercised Godly wisdom) God will vindicate him. God “ shall prolong his days” and “the will of the Lord shall prosper his hand.”
53:11 The song now shifts to the perspective of the suffering servant. Having gone through the suffering he now looks back on, or reflects on his role and is satisfied. Why? because like a sacrificial lamb he has acquitted many (53:11c).
“My servant” ties the end of this song back to the opening line in 52:13.
53:12 Sums up the song. In the first 2 lines of verse 12, God will reward the Servant for his faithfulness. The prophet uses two images taken from warfare. First, God is portrayed as a victorious king who led his troops into battle. With the victory secure, God then portions out the spoils to his fighters. The servant is one among God’s forces that receive a portion of the spoils. The metaphorical image is mixed when we move to the second idea. Second, the servant is now portrayed as dividing the spoils among his forces. Once again we have a puzzle. How can the servant who fought for the king now be the one taking the royal prerogative and deciding who gets what after the battle?
The final four lines of verse 12 explain why the servant assumed the role of a king. It is because the servant submitted to death, was perceived as a rebel (this could be a reference to the army vanquished in this verse), and intervened on behalf of the rebels.
John Olley writes, “Yahweh has won the victory and vindicates his Servant, giving to him many subservient people, together with their spoils. These numerous peoples in turn receive blessing, sharing in the “peace” resulting from Yahweh’s victory and the Servant’s suffering” (John W. Olley, “‘The Many’: How Is Isa 53, 12a to Be Understood,” Bib 68 [1987]: 330-56).
Palm Sunday Year A
Psalm 22:1-11
Psalm 22 is attributed to David. However, there are no passages in the historical books that match the situation described in this Psalm. This makes it difficult to determine if David was the author. Or, if, when the book of Psalms was organized and compiled it was attributed to David.
The Psalm opens with a cry of utter desperation, “My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?” (22:1, NET). The reason for this cry of desperation is given in verse 2. God is ignoring his prayers. Even though God seems distant the psalmist knows that God is holy (22:3) and that like his forefathers, God will answer his prayers (22:4-5). It is his knowledge of how God has acted in the past and God’s character that gave him the confidence that God will answer his prayers.
In verses 6-11 the Psalm focuses on the author’s human frailty. The author is despised and mocked by those around him. He feels less than a person, a worm (22:6). In a manner similar to Job, those around him instruct him to “Commit yourself to the Lord.” However, unlike Job’s friends, the ones giving the advice are mocking him (22:7).
The Psalm opened with a cry of desperation, God where are you? Now the psalmist’s tormentors hurl the same idea back at him, “Let God rescue him. Let God deliver him.” The idea being expressed is that God has turned his back on this individual. The unstated assumption behind this mockery is that he is a sinner under God’s judgment and worthy of being scorned. This Sunday’s reading ends on verse 11 with the psalmist pleading “Do not remain far away from me” (NET) for they have no one else to turn to.
The poetical nature of this text, like that of Isaiah 53, allows for multiple resonances in its meaning. The New Testament authors frequently quoted from this Psalm in reference to Christ’s crucifixion (especially 22:8, 16, 18). The psalmist’s words are placed on the lips of those who mock Jesus (Matthew 27:42). Perhaps the best-known use of the Psalm in the New Testament is when Christ cries out, “My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?” from Psalm 22:1 (see Matt. 27:46; Mark 15:34).
Psalm 22:1-11
Psalm 22 is attributed to David. However, there are no passages in the historical books that match the situation described in this Psalm. This makes it difficult to determine if David was the author. Or, if, when the book of Psalms was organized and compiled it was attributed to David.
The Psalm opens with a cry of utter desperation, “My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?” (22:1, NET). The reason for this cry of desperation is given in verse 2. God is ignoring his prayers. Even though God seems distant the psalmist knows that God is holy (22:3) and that like his forefathers, God will answer his prayers (22:4-5). It is his knowledge of how God has acted in the past and God’s character that gave him the confidence that God will answer his prayers.
In verses 6-11 the Psalm focuses on the author’s human frailty. The author is despised and mocked by those around him. He feels less than a person, a worm (22:6). In a manner similar to Job, those around him instruct him to “Commit yourself to the Lord.” However, unlike Job’s friends, the ones giving the advice are mocking him (22:7).
The Psalm opened with a cry of desperation, God where are you? Now the psalmist’s tormentors hurl the same idea back at him, “Let God rescue him. Let God deliver him.” The idea being expressed is that God has turned his back on this individual. The unstated assumption behind this mockery is that he is a sinner under God’s judgment and worthy of being scorned. This Sunday’s reading ends on verse 11 with the psalmist pleading “Do not remain far away from me” (NET) for they have no one else to turn to.
The poetical nature of this text, like that of Isaiah 53, allows for multiple resonances in its meaning. The New Testament authors frequently quoted from this Psalm in reference to Christ’s crucifixion (especially 22:8, 16, 18). The psalmist’s words are placed on the lips of those who mock Jesus (Matthew 27:42). Perhaps the best-known use of the Psalm in the New Testament is when Christ cries out, “My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?” from Psalm 22:1 (see Matt. 27:46; Mark 15:34).
Palm Sunday Year A
Epistle
Philippians 2:5-11
Philippians 2:5-11 is perhaps one of the loftiest expressions of Jesus’ deity, incarnation, suffering, and exaltation in the New Testament. And while it is tempting to attribute this passage to Paul, it appears to be a hymn that was known in the early church that Paul was quoting. As such it gives us a glimpse into the worship and theological sophistication in the early church. There were other gifted teachers in the early church beside the apostles.
Some translations or editions of the Bible lay these verses out in poetical form. This is very helpful as it allows the reader to see that Philippians 2:6-11 is a hymn or creed. It is really beyond the scope of this short commentary to explain why most scholars believe Paul is quoting a hymn. If you are interested in learning more about early creeds, hymns, or liturgical fragments that are preserved in the writings of the New Testament then see the classic text on this topic:
J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, 3rd ed. (London: Longman, 1972).
The earliest Greek texts would not have been laid out in poetical form, let alone have punctuation. However, they had the advantage of being able to hear the rhythm and cadence of this passage in their mother tongue. We don’t have that advantage. However, we are very familiar with the conventions of poetry in printed texts. So having a Bible that lays this passage out poetically will help the reader see the structure, progression, and content of this hymn. The balance and symmetry in the stanzas to this hymn are essential to understanding its message.
Epistle
Philippians 2:5-11
Philippians 2:5-11 is perhaps one of the loftiest expressions of Jesus’ deity, incarnation, suffering, and exaltation in the New Testament. And while it is tempting to attribute this passage to Paul, it appears to be a hymn that was known in the early church that Paul was quoting. As such it gives us a glimpse into the worship and theological sophistication in the early church. There were other gifted teachers in the early church beside the apostles.
Some translations or editions of the Bible lay these verses out in poetical form. This is very helpful as it allows the reader to see that Philippians 2:6-11 is a hymn or creed. It is really beyond the scope of this short commentary to explain why most scholars believe Paul is quoting a hymn. If you are interested in learning more about early creeds, hymns, or liturgical fragments that are preserved in the writings of the New Testament then see the classic text on this topic:
J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, 3rd ed. (London: Longman, 1972).
The earliest Greek texts would not have been laid out in poetical form, let alone have punctuation. However, they had the advantage of being able to hear the rhythm and cadence of this passage in their mother tongue. We don’t have that advantage. However, we are very familiar with the conventions of poetry in printed texts. So having a Bible that lays this passage out poetically will help the reader see the structure, progression, and content of this hymn. The balance and symmetry in the stanzas to this hymn are essential to understanding its message.
Immediately prior to this passage Paul exhorted the Philippians to be of the same mine, not doing anything from selfish ambition, and treating others as more important than yourself (2:1-4). Exhortations that ring as true today as they did two thousand years ago.
Paul introduces this hymn with an introductory clause that links his exhortations to the hymn, “let the same attitude be in you as was in Christ.” (2:5) The hymn concisely summarizes Jesus’ attitude. As such it serves as an example par excellence for believers to follow so that they can fulfill Paul’s exhortations in 2:1-4.
The hymn is composed of two movements. In the first movement, Christ’s attitude is on full display. Jesus did not consider equality with God as something for him to hold on to, or hold over others (2:6). Instead, he emptied himself (2:7). There has been a great deal of speculation through the centuries as to what this ‘emptying’ consists of. However, the hymn does not give us any more details aside from this single verb.
Emptying (Gk. κενόω, kenoō) is the opposite of arrogance (Gk. φυσιόω, physioō) which conveys the idea of puffing oneself up (filling themselves up with air and puffing out their chest). Christ portrays for us a counter-cultural attitude to follow. Instead of trying puffing ourselves up we are to empty ourselves for the sake of others.
While the hymn does not tell us ‘what’ Christ emptied himself of, it does tell us what he took on. Christ took on “the form of a slave” and became a human being like us (2:7). For the Creator to become one with his creation is one thing. But for the Creator to stoop below his creation is another. Christ “humbled himself” to the point of death. Creation killed its Creator. Jesus didn’t just die on Earth. Rather he was executed. And this was done by “death on a cross,” the most humiliating and shameful manner that was known in the Roman Empire to execute a person. It involved public torture, humiliation, hanging naked on a cross, and totally helpless.
In the second movement (2:9-11) God vindicates and exalts his Son. The Greek conjunction διό (dio) is used to indicate that what follows is inferred from what immediately precedes the conjunction. The ESV, NRSV, and NIV translate this as “therefore.” While that is an appropriated translation it misses the inferential nature of this conjunction. Translations such as the NASB, which uses “for this reason” or the NET Bible’s “as a result” bring the inferential force of this conjunction across better.
“As a result” of Jesus emptying himself and taking the role of a servant, even to death on a cross, God exalted him (2:9). This exaltation is explained in theological terms. God gave him the name above every name. Most likely a reference to the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) in the Hebrew scriptures. Christ is coequal with God once again because they share the same name. The result will be that the entire Earth will bow before Jesus and confess him as Lord. The hymn closes where it began with an expression of equality between God the Father and God the Son (compare “equality with God” in 2:6 and Jesus is Lord to the glory of God the Father” in 2:11).
Paul introduces this hymn with an introductory clause that links his exhortations to the hymn, “let the same attitude be in you as was in Christ.” (2:5) The hymn concisely summarizes Jesus’ attitude. As such it serves as an example par excellence for believers to follow so that they can fulfill Paul’s exhortations in 2:1-4.
The hymn is composed of two movements. In the first movement, Christ’s attitude is on full display. Jesus did not consider equality with God as something for him to hold on to, or hold over others (2:6). Instead, he emptied himself (2:7). There has been a great deal of speculation through the centuries as to what this ‘emptying’ consists of. However, the hymn does not give us any more details aside from this single verb.
Emptying (Gk. κενόω, kenoō) is the opposite of arrogance (Gk. φυσιόω, physioō) which conveys the idea of puffing oneself up (filling themselves up with air and puffing out their chest). Christ portrays for us a counter-cultural attitude to follow. Instead of trying puffing ourselves up we are to empty ourselves for the sake of others.
While the hymn does not tell us ‘what’ Christ emptied himself of, it does tell us what he took on. Christ took on “the form of a slave” and became a human being like us (2:7). For the Creator to become one with his creation is one thing. But for the Creator to stoop below his creation is another. Christ “humbled himself” to the point of death. Creation killed its Creator. Jesus didn’t just die on Earth. Rather he was executed. And this was done by “death on a cross,” the most humiliating and shameful manner that was known in the Roman Empire to execute a person. It involved public torture, humiliation, hanging naked on a cross, and totally helpless.
In the second movement (2:9-11) God vindicates and exalts his Son. The Greek conjunction διό (dio) is used to indicate that what follows is inferred from what immediately precedes the conjunction. The ESV, NRSV, and NIV translate this as “therefore.” While that is an appropriated translation it misses the inferential nature of this conjunction. Translations such as the NASB, which uses “for this reason” or the NET Bible’s “as a result” bring the inferential force of this conjunction across better.
“As a result” of Jesus emptying himself and taking the role of a servant, even to death on a cross, God exalted him (2:9). This exaltation is explained in theological terms. God gave him the name above every name. Most likely a reference to the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) in the Hebrew scriptures. Christ is coequal with God once again because they share the same name. The result will be that the entire Earth will bow before Jesus and confess him as Lord. The hymn closes where it began with an expression of equality between God the Father and God the Son (compare “equality with God” in 2:6 and Jesus is Lord to the glory of God the Father” in 2:11).
Palm Sunday Year A
Gospel
Matthew 27:1-54
Matthew 27 records the culmination of Jesus’ life on Earth. It marks the end of his three years of ministry and his life among us. Chapter 27 opens with Jesus being lead from the Jewish authorities to Pilate, the Roman governor. Due to the length of this particular reading comments will be offered on only a few key events in this passage.
27:3 Judas’ Story
It is at this point that Matthew takes an interesting detour in his narrative. He stitches the story of Judas’ repentance (27:4) into the middle of this very dramatic narrative sequence. Judas’ story is used to illustrate several points. First, Judas was manipulated by the Jewish leaders and they were guilty of his death (27:3-10). Second, the quotation from Jeremiah (verses 9-10) reveals that Judas’ betrayal and the way he was bribed by the religious authorities were prophesied long ago. By quoting Jeremiah at this point, Matthew demonstrates that Jesus’ betrayal and crucifixion were not the results of mob action. Jeremiah spoke about this several hundred years before it took place. It was a foreordained part of God’s plan of salvation.
27:24 Pilate’s Declaration
Pilate’s interaction with Jesus starts in 27:11. During that “trial” Pilate questioned Jesus about his claim to being a king. Throughout Pilate’s questioning, Matthew tells us that Jesus remained silent. To which, Pilate was “quite amazed.” (27:14) Matthew’s inclusion of this small detail is meant to remind the reader of Isaiah 52:15, “the mouth of kings will be shut because of him.” (Matthew follows his normal pattern and alludes to the LXX rather than the Hebrew text in this verse.)
As a side note, it is worth mentioning that Matthew’s account of Jesus’ birth and his death contain the highest density of citations from the Old Testament in Matthew’s gospel. Matthew was determined to demonstrate to the reader that both Jesus’ incarnation and crucifixion were part of God’s eternal plan of salvation. He accomplishes this through his frequent citations and allusions to the Hebrew Scriptures in both of these stories.
Pilate then attempted to release Jesus as was his custom during Passover. When the leaders demand that Barabbas be released instead he begins to lose control of the situation. Pilate knows that Jewish leaders handed Jesus over to him because of envy (27:18). He has also been warned by his wife that Jesus was a righteous man (27:19). Pilate also knows that Jesus has done nothing worthy of death (27:23). But now he is backed into a corner. The Jewish authorities have rejected his offer to release Jesus and demand that Jesus be crucified. It is at this point that Pilate, as a skillful Roman governor, appeases their demands and tries to distance himself from this horrific act, “I am innocent of this man’s blood.” Matthew uses this statement to reiterate a theme that he developed in Judas’ repentance. Both Judas and Pilate are involved in Jesus’ crucifixion. They also realize that Jesus was innocent (27:4a and 27:23-24). From the mouths of two people complicit in Jesus’ death, we have declarations of his innocence.
27:33-37 The Crucifixion
Descriptions of crucifixion are rare in literature from antiquity. This is most likely due to the fact that authors during that day were hesitant to dwell long on this horrific, brutal act. Even the crucifixion narratives in the Gospels (which Martin Hengel thought were the most detailed accounts from the Roman era) are remarkably brief in their recounting of the actual act of crucifixion. Matthew simply states that “they crucified him” (Matthew 27:35a; see also: Mark 15:25, Luke 23:33, and John 19:18).
There are a few details that are shared between the four evangelists regarding Jesus’ crucifixion.
As Jesus hung on the cross those walking by mocked him. Matthew includes another interesting turn of phrase. They “were wagging their heads.” Matthew uses the same Greek verb for ‘wagging’ (κινέω, kineō) that is used in the Greek translation of Psalm 22:8 (the LXX numbering is a bit different and is 21:8). Throughout his account of the crucifixion, Matthew relates Jesus’ sufferings and humiliation with the words of Psalm 22. A more direct reference to Psalm 22 occurs at 27:43.
Those who gathered to watch Jesus’ execution cite from Psalm 22 to taunt Jesus, “He trusts in God, let God deliver him now.” (27:43, Psalm 22:9) The clearest quotation comes from Jesus himself. Just before he died, Jesus cried out, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (27:46, Psalm 22:1)
Shortly after this, Jesus will die sometime in the middle of the afternoon. The speed of his death surprised even his executioners. Crucifixion was designed to be a slow, shameful, and horrific way to die. Jesus’ death was most likely premature due to the torture and beatings he had suffered the previous night.
Paul did not exaggerate when he called a crucified Christ “a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles.” (1 Corinthians 1:23; also 2:2) A “crucified Messiah” would have been an oxymoron in the Jewish communities. There is nothing in the Old Testament or Jewish writings that directly indicated the Messiah would suffer such humiliation and suffering. The servant song in Isaiah 52 and 53 alluded to this. But it is only in hindsight that the enigmas in that song are understood in light of Jesus’ betrayal, trial, and crucifixion. As the hymn goes, “Tis mystery all! The Immortal dies!” (“And can it be that I should gain.” Charles Wesley, 1738)
Almost 100 years after Jesus crucifixion, Justin Martyr (ca. 100–65) wrote how offensive it was to proclaim the divinity of a savior who was crucified like Jesus: “For they proclaim our madness to consist in this, that we give to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all; for they do not discern the mystery that is herein, to which, as we make it plain to you, we pray you to give heed.” (The First Apology. ch. 13.4)
Gospel
Matthew 27:1-54
Matthew 27 records the culmination of Jesus’ life on Earth. It marks the end of his three years of ministry and his life among us. Chapter 27 opens with Jesus being lead from the Jewish authorities to Pilate, the Roman governor. Due to the length of this particular reading comments will be offered on only a few key events in this passage.
27:3 Judas’ Story
It is at this point that Matthew takes an interesting detour in his narrative. He stitches the story of Judas’ repentance (27:4) into the middle of this very dramatic narrative sequence. Judas’ story is used to illustrate several points. First, Judas was manipulated by the Jewish leaders and they were guilty of his death (27:3-10). Second, the quotation from Jeremiah (verses 9-10) reveals that Judas’ betrayal and the way he was bribed by the religious authorities were prophesied long ago. By quoting Jeremiah at this point, Matthew demonstrates that Jesus’ betrayal and crucifixion were not the results of mob action. Jeremiah spoke about this several hundred years before it took place. It was a foreordained part of God’s plan of salvation.
27:24 Pilate’s Declaration
Pilate’s interaction with Jesus starts in 27:11. During that “trial” Pilate questioned Jesus about his claim to being a king. Throughout Pilate’s questioning, Matthew tells us that Jesus remained silent. To which, Pilate was “quite amazed.” (27:14) Matthew’s inclusion of this small detail is meant to remind the reader of Isaiah 52:15, “the mouth of kings will be shut because of him.” (Matthew follows his normal pattern and alludes to the LXX rather than the Hebrew text in this verse.)
As a side note, it is worth mentioning that Matthew’s account of Jesus’ birth and his death contain the highest density of citations from the Old Testament in Matthew’s gospel. Matthew was determined to demonstrate to the reader that both Jesus’ incarnation and crucifixion were part of God’s eternal plan of salvation. He accomplishes this through his frequent citations and allusions to the Hebrew Scriptures in both of these stories.
Pilate then attempted to release Jesus as was his custom during Passover. When the leaders demand that Barabbas be released instead he begins to lose control of the situation. Pilate knows that Jewish leaders handed Jesus over to him because of envy (27:18). He has also been warned by his wife that Jesus was a righteous man (27:19). Pilate also knows that Jesus has done nothing worthy of death (27:23). But now he is backed into a corner. The Jewish authorities have rejected his offer to release Jesus and demand that Jesus be crucified. It is at this point that Pilate, as a skillful Roman governor, appeases their demands and tries to distance himself from this horrific act, “I am innocent of this man’s blood.” Matthew uses this statement to reiterate a theme that he developed in Judas’ repentance. Both Judas and Pilate are involved in Jesus’ crucifixion. They also realize that Jesus was innocent (27:4a and 27:23-24). From the mouths of two people complicit in Jesus’ death, we have declarations of his innocence.
27:33-37 The Crucifixion
Descriptions of crucifixion are rare in literature from antiquity. This is most likely due to the fact that authors during that day were hesitant to dwell long on this horrific, brutal act. Even the crucifixion narratives in the Gospels (which Martin Hengel thought were the most detailed accounts from the Roman era) are remarkably brief in their recounting of the actual act of crucifixion. Matthew simply states that “they crucified him” (Matthew 27:35a; see also: Mark 15:25, Luke 23:33, and John 19:18).
There are a few details that are shared between the four evangelists regarding Jesus’ crucifixion.
- First, there were two other criminals crucified with Jesus, one on each side of him (27:38). This is another allusion to the Servant Song in Isaiah 52-53 (and in particular to Isaiah 53:12).
- Second, it appears that Jesus’ was nailed to the cross (Luke 24:39 and John 20:25).
- Third, Pilate had a placard nailed to the cross that declared that Jesus was “King of the Jews.” (27:37)
As Jesus hung on the cross those walking by mocked him. Matthew includes another interesting turn of phrase. They “were wagging their heads.” Matthew uses the same Greek verb for ‘wagging’ (κινέω, kineō) that is used in the Greek translation of Psalm 22:8 (the LXX numbering is a bit different and is 21:8). Throughout his account of the crucifixion, Matthew relates Jesus’ sufferings and humiliation with the words of Psalm 22. A more direct reference to Psalm 22 occurs at 27:43.
Those who gathered to watch Jesus’ execution cite from Psalm 22 to taunt Jesus, “He trusts in God, let God deliver him now.” (27:43, Psalm 22:9) The clearest quotation comes from Jesus himself. Just before he died, Jesus cried out, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (27:46, Psalm 22:1)
Shortly after this, Jesus will die sometime in the middle of the afternoon. The speed of his death surprised even his executioners. Crucifixion was designed to be a slow, shameful, and horrific way to die. Jesus’ death was most likely premature due to the torture and beatings he had suffered the previous night.
Paul did not exaggerate when he called a crucified Christ “a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles.” (1 Corinthians 1:23; also 2:2) A “crucified Messiah” would have been an oxymoron in the Jewish communities. There is nothing in the Old Testament or Jewish writings that directly indicated the Messiah would suffer such humiliation and suffering. The servant song in Isaiah 52 and 53 alluded to this. But it is only in hindsight that the enigmas in that song are understood in light of Jesus’ betrayal, trial, and crucifixion. As the hymn goes, “Tis mystery all! The Immortal dies!” (“And can it be that I should gain.” Charles Wesley, 1738)
Almost 100 years after Jesus crucifixion, Justin Martyr (ca. 100–65) wrote how offensive it was to proclaim the divinity of a savior who was crucified like Jesus: “For they proclaim our madness to consist in this, that we give to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all; for they do not discern the mystery that is herein, to which, as we make it plain to you, we pray you to give heed.” (The First Apology. ch. 13.4)
Shape Divider - Style fan_opacity
|