Hosea 4:11-19

. . .  11 whoredom.

The Idolatry of Israel

Wine and new wine

take away the understanding.

12 My people consult a piece of wood,

and their divining rod gives them oracles.

For a spirit of whoredom has led them astray,

and they have played the whore, forsaking their God.

13 They sacrifice on the tops of the mountains,

and make offerings upon the hills,

under oak, poplar, and terebinth,

because their shade is good.

Therefore your daughters play the whore,

and your daughters-in-law commit adultery.

14 I will not punish your daughters when they play the whore,

nor your daughters-in-law when they commit adultery;

for the men themselves go aside with whores,

and sacrifice with temple prostitutes;

thus a people without understanding comes to ruin.

15 Though you play the whore, O Israel,

do not let Judah become guilty.

Do not enter into Gilgal,

or go up to Beth-aven,

and do not swear, “As the LORD lives.”

16 Like a stubborn heifer,

Israel is stubborn;

can the LORD now feed them

like a lamb in a broad pasture?

17 Ephraim is joined to idols-

let him alone.

18 When their drinking is ended, they indulge in sexual orgies;

they love lewdness more than their glory.

19 A wind has wrapped them in its wings,

and they shall be ashamed because of their altars. (Hosea 4:11-19, NRSV)

The following comments are repeated here with editing and supplement from October 4, 2006 (Wednesday in the week of the Sunday closest to September 28, Year Two):

In yesterday’s reading, Hosea zeroed in on the priests of Israel, whose corruption has spread to the people. The prophet continues to describe their corruption here. In the NRSV text printed above, today’s reading begins with the last word of the previous sentence, “whoredom” (tUnz4, z^enûth, Hos. 4:11) which in the Authorized (King James) Version is the first word in the next sentence (Hos. 4:11 AV/KJV). Other recent translations punctuate as does the NRSV, using various translations of tUnz4 (z^enûth. cf. “prostitution” TNIV, and “lechery” NJPS 1985, 1999), apparently based on the apparatus note a-a in the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS), 1970, on Hosea 4:11, which says that one should probably read myn9Unz4 (z^enûnîm, a synonym? cf. v. 12c) for tUnz4 (z^enûth) with verse 10.

As today’s lesson begins, the prophet includes the people as well as the priests in his criticism. “Wine and new wine / take away the understanding,” he says (v. 11). “My people consult a piece of wood, / and their divining rod gives them oracles” (v. 12a, b). Of the “piece of wood,” James Luther Mays, revised by Stephen L. Cook, says, it is “possibly a religious symbol of the goddess Asherah (see Ex. 34:13; Deut. 16:21; Mic. 5:14)” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Hosea 4:12). Moses forbade divination and related practices (Deut. 18:10). As he continues, the prophet explains. “For a spirit of whoredom (myn9Unz4, z^enûnîm) has led them astray, / and they have played the whore (Unz4y09v1, wayyiznû), forsaking their God” (v. 12c, d). Clearly the prophet accuses the people of whoredom in metaphor for unfaithfulness to God. What follows elaborates. “They sacrifice on the tops of the mountains, / and make offerings upon the hills, / under oak, poplar, and terebinth, / because their shade is good” (v. 13a, b, c, d). But as the prophet continues, we see that there is a very narrow line between the religious unfaithfulness he is condemning and the fertility cult practices associated with the Canaanite religious practices he denounces. And just where to place that line is a little uncertain. “Therefore your daughters play the whore,” he says, “and your daughters-in-law commit adultery” (v. 13e, f). These two lines and the two that follow are in “synonymous parallelism”: “I will not punish your daughters when they play the whore, / nor your daughters-in-law when they commit adultery” (v 14a, b). But clearly, the prophet includes sexual fornication in his indictment, as a part of the idolatry he condemns: “for the men themselves go aside with whores / and sacrifice with temple prostitutes (tOwd2q04h1-Mf9v4, w^e‘im-haqq^edēšôth); / thus a people without understanding comes to ruin” (v. 14c, d, e).

The word translated “temple prostitutes” (NRSV), or “prostitutes” (NJPS 1985, 1999) is in the w-d-q (q-d-š) group of Hebrew words which connote various aspects of “holiness,” for example, “sanctify yourselves (MT@w4D9q1t4h9v4, w^ehithqaddištem) therefore, and be holy (Myw9doq4, q^edōšîm), for I am holy (wOdq!, qādôš)” (Lev. 11:44). Holiness unto the LORD is holiness of the character of God, but holiness unto the Canaanite fertility gods is a very different matter. In all likelihood, Hosea is referring to both literal sexual promiscuity and the metaphorical sense of unfaithfulness to the LORD as well. Gregory Mobley says, “The term temple prostitutes ([tOwd2q04h1, haqq^edēšôth as noted above] simply means ‘sacred women,’ i.e. female cultic officials, a feature in Canaanite but not orthodox Israelite practice” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on v. 14).

The warning is applied to Judah. “Though you play the whore, O Israel, / do not let Judah become guilty. / Do not enter into Gilgal, / or go up to Beth-aven, / and do not swear, ‘As the LORD lives’ ” (v. 15). Although the wording addresses Israel, it is probably in fact addressed to Judah, an indication that Hosea’s messages for the northern kingdom were preserved and used in the southern kingdom. Judah is not to worship at Gilgal or Beth-aven (Bethel), “the northern shrines closest to Judah,” says Mobley (ibid., on v. 15). “Beth-aven” (Nv@x! tyB2, bēth ’āwen) means “house of Nv@x!, ’āwen.” which is translated variously as “harm, trouble,” “misdeed, injustice,” “deceit, nothing” (Hos. 12:12), or “false, idolatrous cult” (William L. Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon, 1971, 4^th impression 1978, s.v. Nv@x!, ’āwen). The statement is clearly a judgmental slur on worship at Bethel (one of the places where Jeroboam I set up golden calves for worship as alternatives to the temple in Jerusalem, 1 Kgs. 12:28-30). As Hosea’s critique continues, he compares Israel to “a stubborn heifer” (v. 16). “Ephraim is joined to idols–let him alone,” says the prophet (v. 17). In their corruption, drunkenness leads to sexual orgies. “When their drinking is ended, they indulges in sexual orgies” (v. 18a). The prophet explains again: “they love lewdness more than their glory” (v. 18b NRSV). The NRSV text note a admits that this reading is a “Cn [correction] Compare Gk: Meaning of Heb. uncertain”; cf. BHS apparatus on Hos. 4:18. The Septuagint for this line has hjgavphsan ajtimivan ejk fruavgmatoV aujtw:n (ēgapēsan atimian ek phryagmatos autōn), literally “they loved dishonor from their insolence” (Hos. 4:18b LXX). There is considerable variance in the translations here: “their rulers dearly love shameful ways” (v. 18c–with 3 half-lines–TNIV), “They ‘love’ beyond measure–Disgrace is the ‘gift’ / Which the wind is bringing; / They shall garner shame from their sacrifices” (NJPS 1985, 1999, with text note l, “Meaning of vv. 17-19 uncertain in part”). The textual questions won’t be resolved here, but it is clear that the prophet denounces their debauchery in no uncertain terms. The paragraph ends, and so the chapter, with a sad observation. “A wind has wrapped them in its wings, / and they shall be ashamed because of their altars” (v. 19 NRSV; cf. text note c “Gk. Syr.: Heb. sacrifices”).

Hosea 3:1-5 (Presbyterian and Lutheran traditions–text not used in this Episcopal series)

Further Assurances of God’s Redeeming Love

3:1 The LORD said to me again, “Go, love a woman who has a lover and is an adulteress, just as the LORD loves the people of Israel, though they turn to other gods and love raisin cakes.” 2 So I bought her for fifteen shekels of silver and a homer of barley and a measure of wine. 3 And I said to her, “You must remain as mine for many days; you shall not play the whore, you shall not have intercourse with a man, nor I with you.” 4 For the Israelites shall remain many days without king or prince, without sacrifice or pillar, without ephod or teraphim. 5 Afterward the Israelites shall return and seek the LORD their God, and David their king; they shall come in awe to the LORD and to his goodness in the latter days.

The following comments are repeated from yesterday, where they served as a transition to the reading from Hosea chapter four in the Daily Office Lectionary (Book of Common Prayer) series:

Chapter three of Hosea presents more narrative about the personal life of the prophet (Hos. 3:1-5; cf. 1:1-2:1), which sets the scene for the poetic parts about the LORD’s divorcing Israel (2:2-13) and wooing her again (2:14-23 [with vv. 16-21 in prose in the NRSV]). The “Daily Office Lectionary” of the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer passes over Hosea chapter three in the current series, but the daily lectionaries of the Presbyterian Book of Worship and the Lutheran Book of Worship list Hosea 3:1-5 as the reading for tomorrow. This paragraph (chapter) describes “the restoration of Hosea’s marriage” as a picture of how “the LORD’s relationship to Israel will be restored” (Gregory Mobley, NOAB, 3^rd ed. on Hos. 3:1-5). Gregory also notes that this account is in the first person, whereas the initial narrative section, (1:2-2:1) is in the third person, about Hosea, rather than from him. Because Gomer is not named here, Ehud Ben Zvi says, “Scholars disagree on whether it refers to Gomer (1:3) or to another woman. The text leaves her unnamed and by doing so leaves both options open. Clearly, though, Hosea’s relationship to this woman symbolizes again God’s relationship to Israel” (The Jewish Study Bible, on Hos. 3:1). For our purposes, the paragraph provides a transition from the focus on the marriage and divorce metaphor in chapters one to three to the body of prophetic announcements which comprise the bulk of the book. There will be brief allusions to this metaphor later, for example, “Though you play the whore, O Israel, / do not let Judah become guilty” (4:13a), and “O Ephraim, you have played the whore; / Israel is defiled” (5:3b, c; cf. 5:10). But specific references to improper worship also occur, for example, “When Ephraim multiplied altars to expiate sin, / they became to him altars for sinning” (8:11).

Acts 21:15-26

15 After these days we got ready and started to go up to Jerusalem. 16 Some of the disciples from Caesarea also came along and brought us to the house of Mnason of Cyprus, an early disciple, with whom we were to stay.

Paul Visits James at Jerusalem

17 When we arrived in Jerusalem, the brothers welcomed us warmly. 18 The next day Paul went with us to visit James; and all the elders were present. 19 After greeting them, he related one by one the things that God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. 20 When they heard it, they praised God. Then they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands of believers there are among the Jews, and they are all zealous for the law. 21 They have been told about you that you teach all the Jews living among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, and that you tell them not to circumcise their children or observe the customs. 22 What then is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. 23 So do what we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow. 24 Join these men, go through the rite of purification with them, and pay for the shaving of their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself observe and guard the law. 25 But as for the Gentiles who have become believers, we have sent a letter with our judgment that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication.” 26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day, having purified himself, he entered the temple with them, making public the completion of the days of purification when the sacrifice would be made for each of them. (Acts 21:15-26, NRSV)

On August 15, 2007 (Wednesday in the week of the Sunday closest to August 10, Year One), comments were repeated with editing and supplement from October 4, 2006 (Wednesday in the week of the Sunday closest to September 28, Year Two), when comments were repeated from August 10, 2005 (Wednesday of the week of the Twelfth Sunday after Pentecost, Year One). The revised comments are repeated again here with some editing and supplement:

As this reading begins, Paul and his traveling companions get “ready and [start] to go up to Jerusalem” (Acts 21:15). For the departure, there is more than just a farewell prayer meeting (cf. 20:36-38 as they leave Miletus and 21:5-6 leaving Tyre). “Some of the disciples from Caesarea also came along [to Jerusalem] and brought us to the house of Mnason of Cyprus, an early disciple, with whom we were to stay” (21:16). Christopher R. Matthews refers here to “more Christianity in connection with Cyprus at 4:36 [Barnabas]; 11:19-20 [disciples “scattered because of the persecution that took place over Stephen”]; 13:4-12 [mission of Paul and Barnabas]” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on Acts 21:16). It appears that there was a strong network of Hellenist (i.e., Greek-speaking Jewish) Christian believers, of whom some in Jerusalem provide lodging for Paul and his party. Mnason’s home was “either near or in Jerusalem” (Harper’s Bible Dictionary, 1985, s.v. Mnason).

Upon the arrival of Paul and his companions in Jerusalem, “the brothers welcomed us warmly,” says Luke (v. 17). On the next day, the group, including Paul and Luke (“us”), visit with James and “all the elders” (v. 18). This, says Beverly Roberts Gaventa, is “the first reference to James since the Jerusalem Council (15:13-21)” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Acts 21:18). Paul greets them and describes his ministry, relating “one by one the things that God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry” (v. 19). The response of the elders is appreciative: “When they heard it, the praised God” (v. 20a). “The Jerusalem church accepts Paul and his accomplishments,” says Matthews, “as complementary to their own in a harmonious portrait of unity (cf. Gal. 2)” (op. cit., on vv. 17-20).

But these Jerusalem leaders express concern about Paul’s reputation among the “thousands of believers . . . among the Jews” of Jerusalem, who “are all zealous for the law” (v. 20b). “They have been told about you,” Paul is told, “that you teach all the Jews living among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, and that you tell them not to circumcise their children or observe the customs” (v. 21). According to Matthews, “The charge has been anticipated (16:3n). The informants are not identified (see v. 28)” (op. cit., on v. 21). In his note on 16:3, Matthews questions the report that Paul had Timothy circumcised as a young man, but Luke at least is consistent. Paul himself tells us that he refused to have Titus circumcised (Gal. 2:3). In another connection he states a principle. “To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though I myself am not under the law (so that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law) so that I might win those outside the law” (1 Cor. 9:20-21).

At the urging of the Jerusalem elders, Paul agrees to a public demonstration of his commitment to Jewish principles. “What then is to be done?” they ask. “They will certainly hear that you have come” (v. 22). And they state their plan. “So do what we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow. Join these men, go through the rite of purification with them, and pay for the shaving of their heads. Thus all will know that there is nothing in what they have been told about you, but that you yourself observe and guard the law” (vv. 23-24). In this way, says Matthews, “Paul can demonstrate his faithfulness to the law” (on vv. 23-24). The proposed solution takes advantage of the fact that Paul himself was under a temporary nazirite vow. “At Cenchreae he had his hair cut, for he was under a vow” (18:18). So in Jerusalem he is asked to join four men who are also under the vow, “go through the rite of purification with them, and pay for the shaving of their heads” (21:24), which Paul does (v. 26). In the context, Luke reminds us of the Jerusalem Conference and the letter from these leaders, for which James took the initiative, asking Gentile believers to “abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication” (v. 25; cf. Acts 15:20). The critics who only see in this account Luke’s attempt to gloss over major differences between Paul and his Gentile converts on the one hand and the Jerusalem Christians led by James on the other, fail to give due weight to Paul’s commitment to these Jerusalem leaders (Gal. 2:7-10), his extended efforts to have his churches provide a collection for the Jerusalem church (discussed in Gal. 2:10; 1 Cor. 16:1-4; 2 Cor., chaps. 8-9; Rom. 15:25-28), and his goal of a universal church which unites Jewish and Gentile believers (Rom. 11:11-12, 26-32; Eph. 2:11-22). Compare his stated principle (cited above), “To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews” (1 Cor. 9:20).

Luke 5:27-39

Jesus Calls Levi (Mt 9.9-13; Mk 2.13-17)

27 After this he went out and saw a tax collector named Levi, sitting at the tax booth; and he said to him, “Follow me.” 28 And he got up, left everything, and followed him.

29 Then Levi gave a great banquet for him in his house; and there was a large crowd of tax collectors and others sitting at the table with them. 30 The Pharisees and their scribes were complaining to his disciples, saying, “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?” 31 Jesus answered, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; 32 I have come to call not the righteous but sinners to repentance.”

The Question about Fasting (Mt 9.14-17; Mk 2.18-22)

33 Then they said to him, “John’s disciples, like the disciples of the Pharisees, frequently fast and pray, but your disciples eat and drink.’ 34 Jesus said to them, “You cannot make wedding guests fast while the bridegroom is with them, can you? 35 The days will come when the bridegroom will be taken away from them, and then they will fast in those days.” 36 He also told them a parable: “No one tears a piece from a new garment and sews it on an old garment; otherwise the new will be torn, and the piece from the new will not match the old. 37 And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the new wine will burst the skins and will be spilled, and the skins will be destroyed. 38 But new wine must be put into fresh wineskins. 39 And no one after drinking old wine desires new wine, but says, ‘The old is good.’” (Luke 5:27-39, NRSV)

On April 28, 2007 (Saturday in the week of the Third Sunday of Easter, Year One), comments were repeated with revision and supplement from October 4, 2006 (Wednesday in the week of the Sunday closest to September 28, Year Two), when comments were repeated from April 16, 2005 (Saturday of the week of the Third Sunday of Easter, Year One). The revised comments are repeated again here with some adaptation. For parallel accounts of the calling of Levi/Matthew and the Question about Fasting, see the separate file, Call of Levi.

            Jesus Reaches Out to Those whom Others Shun

In today’s reading we meet a man whom Jesus called who was sitting at the tax booth. Levi “got up, left everything, and followed him” (Lk. 5:28; cf. Mk. 2:14; and ‘Matthew’ in Mt. 9:9). The tax collectors of Jesus’ day were like Rodney Dangerfield–they had no respect! In fact they were hated!

The telw:nai [telōnai] in the synoptics [i.e. the Synoptic Gospels, Mt., Mk., Lk.] . . . are not the holders (Lat. Publicani) of the ‘taxfarming’ contracts themselves, but subordinates (Lat. Portitores) hired by them; the higher officials were usually foreigners, but their underlings were, as a rule, taken from the native population. The prevailing system of tax collection afforded a collector many opportunities to exercise greed and unfairness. Hence tax collectors were particularly hated and despised as a class [examples from Greece 4^th to 2^nd c. B.C.]. . . . A strict Israelite was further offended by the fact that tax-collectors had to maintain continual contact w. non-Israelites in the course of their work; this rendered an Israelite tax-collector ceremonially unclean. The prevailing attitude is expressed in [combinations such as “tax collectors (telw:nai, telōnai) and sinners,” Mt. 9:10-11;11:19; Mk. 2:15, 16; “a gentile and a tax collector,” Mt. 18:17; and “tax collectors and harlots,” Mt. 21:31, 32]. (Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich [BDAG], A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3^rd ed., 2000, s.v. telw:nai, telōnai)

If any part of this indicates how Levi felt about himself, he must have been only too glad to leave the tax booth. But his next action was not likely to win him the “Model Pharisee of the Year” award either. “Levi gave a great banquet for him in his house; and there was a large crowd of tax collectors and others sitting at the table with them” (Lk. 5:29; cf. “he sat at dinner in Levi’s house,” Mk. 2:15; cf. Mt. 9:10). But the “Pharisees and their scribes” were directing their complaints against Jesus (Lk. 5:30; cf. Mk. 2:16; Mt. 9:11), who replied, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; I have come to call not the righteous but sinners to repentance” (Lk. 5:31-32; cf. Mk. 2:17). Matthew adds a quotation to this saying, “I desire mercy, not sacrifice” (Mt. 9:13; cf. 12:7), citing Hosea 6:6, “For I desire steadfast love (ds@H@, chesed) and not sacrifice.” Surely, if the sick and the sinners are included, then we are too! Unless we adopt a disdaining attitude similar to the Pharisees here.

In the account of the Question about Fasting, the question is put to Jesus by the people, according to Mark. “Now John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting, and people came and said to him [Jesus], “Why do John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast” (Mk. 2:18). In Luke, the indefinite “they” (oiJ dev, hoi de, Lk. 5:33) who ask the question could be a reference to Mark’s “crowd” (Mk. 7:13), or the less definite “people” (the NRSV translation of the plural verb endings of “came,” e[rcontai, erchontai, and “said,” levgousin, legousin, Mk. 2:18), which, in Mark could well refer to “John’s disciples and the Pharisees” (Mk. 2:18). But Luke’s “they” is clearly separate from John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees, for the question, or rather assertion, refers to them in the third person. “John’s disciples, like the disciples of the Pharisees, frequently fast and pray, but your disciples eat and drink” (Lk. 5:33). Matthew’s brief account agrees with Luke in assigning the question to “the disciples of John,” but Mark in the wording of the question. Why do we [cf. “John’s disciples,” Mk. 2:18] and the Pharisees fast often, but your disciples do not fast” (Mt. 9:14; cf. Mk. 2:18; Lk. 5:33). For the negative characterization of Jesus’ disciples as not fasting, Luke’s form of the challenge says, “but your disciples eat and drink” (Lk. 5:33).

In the accounts of Jesus’ response, according to Luke, Mark’s somewhat impersonal form, “The wedding guests cannot fast [cf. ‘mourn’ Mt. 9:15] while the bridegroom is with them, can they?” (Mk. 2:19a), is more direct–second person– in Luke. “You cannot make wedding guests fast while the bridegroom is with them, can you?” (Lk. 5:34). Only Mark has Jesus answer his own question. “As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast” (Mk. 2:19b). The prediction of a future time of fasting for the disciples, “when the bridegroom will be taken away from them” (Lk. 5:35; Mk. 2:20; Mt. 9:15b) is essentially the same in the three Gospels.

Mark’s version of the saying about the piece of an unshrunk cloth, “No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old cloak; otherwise, the patch pulls away from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear is made” (Mk. 2:21) is essentially the same as Matthew’s version (Mt. 9:16); but Luke simplifies the reference to patching, “No one tears a piece from a new garment and sews it on an old garment” (Lk. 5:36a), and though mentioning the tearing, emphasizes the mismatch of the material, “otherwise the new will be torn, and the piece from the new will not match the old” (Lk. 5:36b). The sayings about the wine and the wineskins vary, but are essentially the same in the three Gospels. For Mark’s “And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the wine will burst the skins, and the wine is lost, and so are the skins; but one puts new wine into fresh wineskins” (Mk. 2:22), Luke has “new wine” three times, whereas Mark’s second reference is to “wine” (Lk. 5:37-38). Where Mark says the wine “is lost,” Matthew says it “is spilled” (Mt. 9:17), but Luke says it “will be spilled” (Lk. 5:37. For each, the remedy is putting “new wine into fresh wineskins” (Mk. 2:22; Mt. 9:17; Lk. 5:38). Matthew adds the result, “and so both [i.e. the wine and the wineskins] are preserved,” but Luke adds another perspective. “And no one after drinking old wine desires new wine, but says, ‘The old is good’” (Lk. 5:39).

Eric Franklin comments:

Having shown God’s new approach in Jesus and the challenge this made to the Jewish religious tradition, this section emphasizes the move forward that was required if it was to be accepted. New material could not be made to fit in with the old; to use it as a patch to complete the old would not work, for not only would it tear the new garment and in effect destroy it, but it would also not match the old. Likewise, new wine needed new bottles. For all his understanding of God’s approach in Jesus as the climax of what he had done in Israel, Luke was aware of its radicality and of the jump that was required if members of the covenantal people were to receive it. v. 39, which is peculiar to him, gives his reason for the Jewish failure to respond to Jesus’ new challenge. (The Oxford Bible Commentary, 2001, p. 934 on Lk. 5:33-39)

David L. Tiede suggests that verse 39 may have been added later. He refers to the NRSV text note, “Other ancient authorities read better, others lack verse 39” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Lk. 5:39). Based on strong manuscript evidence, however, the editors of the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament (3^rd ed., 1975) include it with a rating of “B” implying some doubt. “If original,” says Tiede, agreeing with Franklin, “it may concede that those who valued old ways were not attracted to Jesus’ fellowship and practices” (Tiede, loc. cit.). He refers to Sirach 9:10, “Do not abandon old friends, / for new ones cannot equal them. / A new friend is like new wine; / when it has aged, you can drink it with pleasure.” Clearly, many of the Jewish leaders did not accept Jesus’ message.

The commentary of Jamieson, Fausset and Brown comments as follows on this passage:

The incongruities mentioned in Lu 5:36-38 were intended to illustrate the difference between the genius of the old and new economies, and the danger of mixing up the one with the other. As in the one case supposed, “the rent is made worse,” and in the other, “the new wine is spilled,” so by a mongrel mixture of the ascetic ritualism of the old with the spiritual freedom of the new economy, both are disfigured and destroyed. The additional parable in Lu 5:39, which is peculiar to Luke, has been variously interpreted. But the “new wine” seems plainly to be the evangelical freedom which Christ was introducing; and the old, the opposite spirit of Judaism: men long accustomed to the latter could not be expected “straightway” “all at once” to take a liking for the former; that is, “These inquiries about the difference between My disciples and the Pharisees,” and even John’s, are not surprising; they are the effect of a natural revulsion against sudden change, which time will cure; the new wine will itself in time become old, and so acquire all the added charms of antiquity. What lessons does this teach, on the one hand, to those who unreasonably cling to what is getting antiquated; and, on the other, to hasty reformers who have no patience with the timidity of their weaker brethren!

(Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., Fausset, A. R., Brown, D., & Brown, D. 1997. A commentary, critical and explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments. On spine: Critical and explanatory commentary. Logos Research Systems, Inc.: Oak Harbor, WA.)

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net