Hosea 2:2-14

The following comments are repeated here with editing and supplement from October 1, 2006 (the Sunday closest to September 28, Year Two):

Yesterday’s reading (Hosea 1:1-2:1; Heb. 1:1-2:3) introduces the Book of Hosea in a prose section that describes Hosea’s marriage to Gomer (Hos. 1:3), described as “a wife of whoredom” (v. 2), and three children with names that have meanings related to God’s judgment of Israel for her sins. The reading’s (and chapter’s) concluding paragraph looks forward to possible repentance, restoration and renewal, anticipated later in the book, for example, “Come, let us return to the LORD; / for it is he who has torn, and he will heal us” (6:1a, b; cf. chap. 12). In the first chapter we find the promise, “where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ it shall be said to them, ‘Children of the living God’ ” (v. 10, Heb. 2:1).

Today’s reading focuses on the negative side of these themes–as does much of the book. The prophet speaks in poetic form, addressing, it seems, his children. But the marriage metaphor applies, and the people of Israel, addressed as Israel’s children, are asked to “Plead (Ubyr9, rîvû) with your mother, plead (Ubyr9, rîvû)–for she is not my wife,/ and I am not her husband–that she put away her whoring from her face, / and her adultery from between her breasts. “Plead with [-b4 Ubyr9, rîvû v-],” says Gregory Mobley, means “take legal action against” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on Hos. 2:2 = Heb. 2:4). The New Jewish Publication Society translates the verb as “Rebuke” (Hos. 2:4 NJPS 1985, 1999; where the NRSV numbering is v. 2, following the Hebrew text in which 1:10 NRSV is 2:1 MT [Massoretic Text]). Ehud Ben Zvi interprets in agreement with Mobley: “The word carries a legal connotation of arguing against someone in a court of law, while at the same time it means ‘reprove’ in the hope of correcting the behavior of someone (cf. Radak and Targum). This ‘someone’ is metaphorically both the community of Israel and the land. For she is not my wife may be the legal language used in a declaration of divorce” (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, on Hos. 2:4/2:2).

The whoring then, that is, adultery, is Israel’s worship of gods other than the LORD God. Mobley says, “Israel wrongly attributed its agricultural fertility to Baal, a Canaanite god. For this infidelity, the LORD first initiates divorce against Israel, the promiscuous wife; then promises a rebetrothal” (op. cit., on Hos. 2:2-23). Baal is mentioned in verses 8 and 16; Baals (plural) in verses 13 and 17. If Israel does not turn from this idolatry, says the prophet metaphorically, there will be severe consequences, for “I will strip her naked / and expose her as in the day she was born, / and make her like a wilderness, / and turn her into a parched land, / and kill her with thirst” (v. 3 = Heb. v. 5). According to John Day, “Stripping a wife naked (v. 3/5) was a punishment the wronged husband could inflict” (The Oxford Bible Commentary, 2001, p. 173 on Hos. 2:2-15 [MT 4-17]). It apparently has no connection with the ancient practice of “exposing” unwanted children (cf. L. Emmett Holt, M.D., LL.D., “The Sacrifice of Infant Life Among the Ancients,” a section of “Infant Mortality, Ancient and Modern, An Historical Sketch” (on the Internet at http://www.neonatology.org/classics/holt.html, accessed again Sept. 26, 2008).

 “Upon her children also I will have no pity (MH2r1x3 xlo, lō’ ’ ^arachēm),” says the Lord–speaking through the prophet–“because they are children of whoredom” (v. 4 = Heb. v. 6). “No pity,” says Mobley, is “a pun on Lo-ruhamah [hm!H!ru xlo, lō’ ruchāmāh]” (op. cit., on v. 4 = Heb. v. 6; cf. Ben Zvi, op. cit., on v. [4 =] 6). When Israel is defeated and her people taken into captivity, she becomes childless. The reference to her “lovers” (v. 5/7) points to the foreign gods whom Israel credits with blessings that come from the LORD. She will be prevented from pursuing them by the hedge of thorns, and the wall, by which the LORD prevents her from finding “her paths” (v. 6/8). She will attempt to return to God, saying “it was better with me then than now” (v. 7b/9b). She is credited with ignorance of the fact it was the LORD, and not Baal, “who gave her / the grain in its time, / and my wine in its season” (v. 9a/11a), but the LORD will now “take away my wool and my flax, / which were to cover her nakedness” (v. 9b/11b). Ben Zvi says, “now her husband (the LORD) will remove His provisions, including food and clothing. Without the clothing, she (Israel) will be naked and shamed. Her joy will disappear and none of her lovers will be able to help her against her angry husband (the LORD)” (op. cit., on vv. 9-15). The LORD “will put an end to all her mirth, / her festivals, her new moons, her sabbaths, / and all her appointed festivals” (v. 11/13). These terms refer to “customary occasions for worship,” but they “were now diluted by elements of Baalism” (Mobley on v. 11/13). The LORD will “lay waste her vines and her fig trees” (v. 12a/14a), which she has regarded as “pay” from her lovers, the other gods (v. 12b/14b). The LORD will punish her (v. 13/15), but he will also attempt to win her back (v. 14/16): “Therefore, I will now allure her, / and bring her into the wilderness, / and speak tenderly to her.” The words, “allure her, are called “courtship language” by Mobley (on v. 14/16).

Hosea 1:1-2:1 (Presbyterian and Lutheran traditions–see yesterday’s comments on this passage.)

James 3:1-13

Taming the Tongue

3:1 Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers and sisters, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness. 2 For all of us make many mistakes. Anyone who makes no mistakes in speaking is perfect, able to keep the whole body in check with a bridle. 3 If we put bits into the mouths of horses to make them obey us, we guide their whole bodies. 4 Or look at ships: though they are so large that it takes strong winds to drive them, yet they are guided by a very small rudder wherever the will of the pilot directs. 5 So also the tongue is a small member, yet it boasts of great exploits.

How great a forest is set ablaze by a small fire! 6 And the tongue is a fire. The tongue is placed among our members as a world of iniquity; it stains the whole body, sets on fire the cycle of nature, and is itself set on fire by hell. 7 For every species of beast and bird, of reptile and sea creature, can be tamed and has been tamed by the human species, 8 but no one can tame the tongue–a restless evil, full of deadly poison. 9 With it we bless the Lord and Father, and with it we curse those who are made in the likeness of God. 10 From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers and sisters, this ought not to be so. 11 Does a spring pour forth from the same opening both fresh and brackish water? 12 Can a fig tree, my brothers and sisters, yield olives, or a grapevine figs? No more can salt water yield fresh.

13 Who is wise and understanding among you? Show by your good life that your works are done with gentleness born of wisdom. (James 3:1-13, NRSV)

Comments on James 3:1-12 of September 5, 2007 (Wednesday in the week of the Sunday closest to August 31, 2007), were repeated from September 5, 2007 (Wednesday in the week of the Sunday closest to August 31, 2007). The comments were combined with revision and supplement on November 21, 2006 (Tuesday in the week of the Sunday closest to November 16, Year Two), and earlier, as noted there. The combined comments are repeated here with some editing and supplement:

In this reading James begins with a warning for teachers. “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers and sisters, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness” (Jas. 3:1). The continuation with warnings about improper speaking has relevance for all of us, but especially for teachers. James B. Adamson explains the warning for teachers:

In the Jewish Diaspora congregations [i.e. among those whom James addresses] there was an order of “teachers,” which this passage suggests was in danger of being overrun by unworthy members and candidates. . . . Apparently James himself was a member of the order: “we shall be adjudged. . . . “though a few [later manuscripts] and versions emend to the second person to soften this inclusiveness. This chapter, though not formally addressed to this order, is specially aimed at them: vv. 1-12 caution the sincere against the constant danger of sinning with the tongue, a danger inseparable from the teaching profession.” (The Epistle of James, NICNT, 1976, p. 140)

James warns about sins of the tongue, which is compared to “a bridle” with “bits” which are put “into the mouths of horses” (James 3:2-3) and the “very small rudder” that guides large ships (v. 4). “So also,” he says, “the tongue is a small member, yet it boasts of great exploits” (v. 5a).

The metaphor shifts from the ship to the forest fire. “How great a forest is set ablaze by a small fire!” (v. 5b). James emphasizes the fire analogy. “And the tongue is a fire. The tongue is placed among our members as a world of iniquity; it stains the whole body, sets on fire the cycle of nature (troco;n th:V genevsewV, trochon tēs genesōs, ‘Or wheel of birth’ NRSV text note b), and is itself set on fire by hell” (v. 6). Cain Hope Felder comments on “a series of analogies [which] develops the argument: horses (v. 3), ships (v. 4), forest . . . fire (v. 5),” and what he calls “the peculiar reference ([NRSV] note b) to the wheel of birth (a Hellenistic philosophical concept for the transmigration of souls)” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on Jas. 3:3-7). Martin Dibelius comments at length on this phrase, which he says originates in “Orphic notions of the cycle of becoming and passing away”:

The soul cannot perish, and so long as it is not sanctified and purified it must repeatedly be born from death to a new earthly existence. Therefore the goal of Orphic sanctification is to bestow salvation from this fate, freedom from the cycle. (James; A Commentary on the Epistle of James, rev. by Heinrich Greeven, transl. by Michael A. Williams, Hermeneia–a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible, 1976, in an excursus on “The Cycle of Becoming, p. 196, cf. pp. 196-198)

But Dibelius does not attribute this understanding of the phrase to James.

But it must be kept in mind that in his use of this term Jas. is signifying little more than ‘life,’ perhaps with a pessimistic overtone such as others of the period heard in the words ‘Necessity’ ( jAnavgkh see Philo) and ‘Fate’ (EiJmarmevnh [Heimarmenē], see Simplicius). Therefore, the adoption of an originally Orphic expression by an author such as ours can be understood. . . . Hence, the derivation of this term from more remote religious circles–India or Babylon [as some do]–may be rejected. (ibid., p. 198)

James adds another analogy: “For every species of beast and bird, of reptile and sea creature, can be tamed and has been tamed by the human species, but no one can tame the tongue–a restless evil, full of deadly poison” (Jas. 3:7-8). Felder sees the phrase “taming the tongue [as] amplifying the pairing of “not bridling the tongue” and “deception” in 1:26, while intensifying the critique of those who disregard the need to control their speech (cf. Sir 5:10-14)” (op. cit., on v. 8).

James note the tongue may be used well, or used very badly. “With it we bless the Lord and Father, and with it we curse those who are made in the likeness of God. From the same mouth come blessing and cursing” (vv. 9-10a). James deplores this situation. “My brothers and sisters, this ought not to be so” (v. 10b). James illustrates with two further analogies, the first a comparison with a spring of water. He asks, “Does a spring pour forth from the same opening both fresh and brackish water?” (v. 11). Dibelius rejects understanding this as “an allegorical reference to the human being in the word ‘spring’ (phghv[, pēgē]) and to the mouth in the word ‘opening’ (ojphv[, opē]), [although this] has seemed to be a quite natural interpretation. Such an allegorical interpretation is superfluous, since by it the thought is at most made more confusing and is in no way clarified” (op. cit., on Jas. 3:11). James’s second analogy is biological. “Can a fig tree, my brothers and sisters, yield olives, or a grapevine figs? No more can salt water yield fresh” (v. 12). Compare Jesus’ saying about figs: “Figs are not gathered from thorns, nor are grapes picked from a bramble bush” (Lk. 6:44; cf. Mt. 7:16).

As James turns to another topic, “Wisdom from Above” (subheading in the United Bible Societies [UBS] The Greek New Testament, 3^rd ed., 1975, on Jas. 3:13-18), he admonishes: “Who is wise and understanding among you? Show by your good life that your works are done with gentleness born of wisdom” (v. 13). The warnings in this chapter are especially appropriate for teachers. According to Warren A. Quanbeck and Pheme Perkins, “Two besetting sins of the teacher are rebuked: intemperate speech (vv. 1-12) and arrogance (vv. 13-18 [from tomorrow’s lesson])” (NOAB, 2^nd ed., on Jas. 3:1-18). Teaching is an essential function within society in general as well as in the church. Pray that we may do it in a proper spirit, with dedication both to truth and to the well-being of those with whom we work.

Matthew 13:44-52

Three Parables

44 “The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which someone found and hid; then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field.

45 “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant in search of fine pearls; 46 on finding one pearl of great value, he went and sold all that he had and bought it.

47 “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was thrown into the sea and caught fish of every kind; 48 when it was full, they drew it ashore, sat down, and put the good into baskets but threw out the bad. 49 So it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous 50 and throw them into the furnace of fire, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Treasures New and Old

51 “Have you understood all this?” They answered, “Yes.” 52 And he said to them, “Therefore every scribe who has been trained for the kingdom of heaven is like the master of a household who brings out of his treasure what is new and what is old.” (Matthew 13:44-52, NRSV)

On June 2, 2008 (Monday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 1, Year Two), comments were repeated with editing and supplement from November 6, 2007 (Tuesday in the week of the Sunday closest to November 2, Year One), when comments were repeated from October 1, 2006 (the Sunday closest to September 28, Year Two), which then were repeated from June 5, 2006 (Monday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 1), when comments were combined and revised from earlier (as noted there); the combined comments are repeated again here:

The series of parables in Matthew chapter 13 concludes with the Parables of Hidden Treasure (v. 44, cf. Gospel of Thomas 109), the Pearl of Great Value (vv. 45-46, cf. Gospel of Thomas 76), and the Dragnet (vv. 47-50), cf. Gospel of Thomas 8). There are no parallel versions of these parables in the other Canonical Gospels. Neither the Canonical Gospels nor the Gospel of Thomas has a parallel to the statement about the Christian scribe. The following table compares these parables from Matthew with those in the Gospel of Thomas:

Earlier we have noted that the Gospel of Thomas lacks interpretations of the Parable of the Sower (Mt. 13:18-23; Mk. 4:13-20; Lk. 8:11-15) and the Parable of the Wheat and the Weeds (Mt. 13:36-43). Whereas some see the interpretations in the Canonical Gospels as later expansions of the more primitive tradition as found in the Gospel of Thomas, we suggested rather that the interpretations were omitted by the Gospel of Thomas because their theology did not fit. For two parables in today’s reading, the Parable of the Hidden Treasure (Mt:13:44; GT 109) and the Parable of the Pearl of Great Value (Mt. 13:45-46; GT 76), the Gospel of Thomas appears to be expanded considerably with several details. It thus appears that the Gospel of Thomas is not above expanding his tradition, though it could be that Matthew has done some abbreviating here.

For Matthew, the Parable of the Hidden Treasure focuses on the value of the treasure itself, which is compared to the value of the kingdom of heaven. One is motivated to sell “all that he has and [buy] that field” in order to acquire the treasure. In the Gospel of Thomas version, the focus is rather on the ignorance of the father and the son, neither of whom are aware of the treasure. In Gnosticism, which some find in some of the sayings of the Gospel of Thomas, knowledge, rather than faith, is the key to salvation. In the Gospel of Thomas version, the man who bought the field doesn’t merely focus on the value of the treasure; rather, when he finds the treasure while ploughing, his life changes as he begins “to lend money at interest to [whomever] he wished.” The kingdom, elsewhere called “the kingdom of the Father,” is not apocalyptically conceived as the end of the age, but rather amounts to a change in vocation and life style.

For Matthew, the Parable of the Pearl of Great Value also focuses on the value of the treasure itself, and again it is the value of the kingdom of heaven that is at stake. The merchant who recognizes its value sells everything he has in order to get it. Compare Jesus’ words to the one who asked about eternal life (Mt. 19:16-22; Mk. 10:17-22; Lk. 18:18-25), whom we know by combining the records as the rich young ruler: “If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me” (Mt. 19:21). Again, the Gospel of Thomas version of the Parable of the Pearl of Great Value expands the parable as compared to Matthew, though the main lines of action are essentially the same. In both the merchant sells his pearls (Mt.) or merchandise (GT) in order to buy the one pearl of great value. In this instance it is the Gospel of Thomas version that seeks to drive the point home, “You also must seek for the treasure which does not perish, which abides where no moth comes near to eat and (where) no (oujdev [oude] worm destroys.” This emphasizes the value and the permanence of the pearl, which could be understood as the way of gnosticism, or that of other movements.

In the Parable of the Dragnet, the different emphases of Matthew and of the Gospel of Thomas come into sharper relief. The story itself is similar. In Matthew “the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was thrown into the sea and caught fish of every kind” (Mt:13:47). In the Gospel of Thomas, we are informed that “Man is like a wise fisherman who cast his net into the sea; he drew it out of the sea when it was full of little fishes.” So far, the narrative is similar. But as they continue, in Matthew the fishermen sort out the fish, keeping the good but throwing out the bad (Mt. 13:48). This represents the last judgment “at the end of the age” (v. 49a), when the angels “will come out and separate the evil from the righteous” (v. 49b; cf. vv. 40-42; 15:41-46). In the Gospel of Thomas version, “the wise fisherman” finds “a large good fish,” which he saves, and throws back the small fish. Thus there is emphasis on the value of the large fish, but nothing of the apocalyptic perspective of Matthew’s version. If the great value of the gospel of salvation is the meaning of the pearl and the treasure, the outcome at Judgment Day is a key part of this value. Matthew’s Parable of Weeds Among the Wheat (13:24-30) makes a similar point; whereas the parallel in Mark 4:26-29 makes no reference to weeds, but focuses on the growth of the seed, though the one who scattered the seed “does not know how” (Mk. 4:27).

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net