Hosea 5:8-6:6

8 Blow the horn in Gibeah,

the trumpet in Ramah.

Sound the alarm at Beth-aven;

look behind you, Benjamin!

9 Ephraim shall become a desolation

in the day of punishment;

among the tribes of Israel

I declare what is sure.

10 The princes of Judah have become

like those who remove the landmark;

on them I will pour out

my wrath like water.

11 Ephraim is oppressed, crushed in judgment,

because he was determined to go after vanity.

12 Therefore I am like maggots to Ephraim,

and like rottenness to the house of Judah.

13 When Ephraim saw his sickness,

and Judah his wound,

then Ephraim went to Assyria,

and sent to the great king.

But he is not able to cure you

or heal your wound.

14 For I will be like a lion to Ephraim,

and like a young lion to the house of Judah.

I myself will tear and go away;

I will carry off, and no one shall rescue.

15 I will return again to my place

until they acknowledge their guilt and seek my face.

In their distress they will beg my favor:

A Call to Repentance

6:1 “Come, let us return to the LORD;

for it is he who has torn, and he will heal us;

he has struck down, and he will bind us up.

2 After two days he will revive us;

on the third day he will raise us up,

that we may live before him.

3 Let us know, let us press on to know the LORD;

his appearing is as sure as the dawn;

he will come to us like the showers,

like the spring rains that water the earth.”

Impenitence of Israel and Judah

4 What shall I do with you, O Ephraim?

What shall I do with you, O Judah?

Your love is like a morning cloud,

like the dew that goes away early.

5 Therefore I have hewn them by the prophets,

I have killed them by the words of my mouth,

and my judgment goes forth as the light.

6 For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice,

the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings. (Hosea 5:8-6:6, NRSV)

The following comments are repeated here from October 5, 2006 (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to September 28, Year Two):

“Blow the horn (rp!Ow, šôfār) in Gibeah,” says Hosea, “the trumpet (hr!c4coH3, ch^atsōts^erāh) in Ramah” (Hos. 5:8 NRSV). The same words and translations occur in the context of worship (Ps. 98:6). In Joshua 6:4-6, the plural tOrp4Ow, šôf^erôth is translated as “trumpets” and Nr@q@, qeren is translated as the “ram’s horn” (Josh. 6:5 NRSV). Since the rp!Ow (šôfār) is used “for blowing a signal” (William L. Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 1971, 10^th corrected impression 1988, s.v. rp!Ow, šôfār), it found uses both in worship and in war, perhaps both as Joshua surrounded Jericho. But for this Hosea passage, it signals the LORD’s attack on the northern kingdom (Gibeah, Ramah, Beth-aven [Bethel], Benjamin, Hos. 5:8, and Ephraim, v. 9). “Ephraim shall become a desolation / in the day of punishment (v. 9a, b). According to Gregory Mobley, because “Gibeah [and] Ramah [were] Benjaminite towns just north of Jerusalem, situated on the path an invading army would take approaching from the south (Isa. 10:28-32) . . . this may refer to a Judahite counterattack after the Syro-Ephraimite initiative failed” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on Hos. 5:8). But the continuation threatens Judah (v. 10 as well as Ephraim (v. 11), even both in similar terms, “maggots” and “rottenness” (v. 12).

Ephraim’s going “to Assyria . . . to the great king” (v. 13c, d) is explained by Mobley: “Hoshea, the final king in Samaria (732-722 BCE), sought to appease Assyria in the wake of Pekah’s failed rebellion (2 Kings 16:3)” (on v. 13). But that was no cure (v. 13e, f) for Ephraim’s illness (v. 13a), because the LORD himself is the attacking lion (v. 14), whose purpose is Israel’s repentance: “no one shall return . . . until they acknowledge their guilt and seek my face” (vv. 14d, 15b).

Hosea continues by calling Israel to repentance: “Come, let us return (hb!Uwn!v4, w^enāšûvā) to the LORD; / for it is he who has torn, and he will heal us; / he has struck down, and he will bind us up” (6:1). Although the appeal for repentance continues with reviving (v. 2) “like the spring rains that water the earth” (v. 3d), the LORD is forced to ask (through the prophet), “What shall I do with you, O Ephraim? / What shall I do with you, O Judah? (v. 4a, b). Although the LORD has “hewn them by prophets . . . killed them by the words of my mouth” (v. 5a, b) in judgment (v. 5c), it has been to no effect, it seems. The reading closes with what Mobley calls “a persistent theme of the prophets” (op. cit., on v. 6 with ref. to Amos 5:22-24; Micah 6:6-8): “For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, / the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings” (Hos. 6:6).

Hosea 4:1-10 (Presbyterian and Lutheran traditions–for comments on Hosea 4:1-10, see the comments two days ago, Tuesday, September 30).

Acts 21:27-36

Paul Arrested in the Temple

27 When the seven days were almost completed, the Jews from Asia, who had seen him in the temple, stirred up the whole crowd. They seized him, 28 shouting, “Fellow Israelites, help! This is the man who is teaching everyone everywhere against our people, our law, and this place; more than that, he has actually brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place.” 29 For they had previously seen Trophimus the Ephesian with him in the city, and they supposed that Paul had brought him into the temple. 30 Then all the city was aroused, and the people rushed together. They seized Paul and dragged him out of the temple, and immediately the doors were shut. 31 While they were trying to kill him, word came to the tribune of the cohort that all Jerusalem was in an uproar. 32 Immediately he took soldiers and centurions and ran down to them. When they saw the tribune and the soldiers, they stopped beating Paul. 33 Then the tribune came, arrested him, and ordered him to be bound with two chains; he inquired who he was and what he had done. 34 Some in the crowd shouted one thing, some another; and as he could not learn the facts because of the uproar, he ordered him to be brought into the barracks. 35 When Paul came to the steps, the violence of the mob was so great that he had to be carried by the soldiers. 36 The crowd that followed kept shouting, “Away with him!” (Acts 21:27-36, NRSV)

On August 16, 2007 (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to August 10, Year One), comments were repeated with editing and supplement from On October 5, 2006 (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to September 28, Year Two), when comments were repeated from August 11, 2005 (Thursday of the week of the Twelfth Sunday after Pentecost, Year One). The comments are repeated again here:

Absalom’s declared intention to fulfill a vow (2 Sam. 15:7) was a pretense. But in this reading from Acts, we find Paul in the Jerusalem temple with every intention of fulfilling his vow. “When the seven days [of purification] were almost complete, the Jews from Asia, who had seen him in the temple, stirred up the whole crowd. They seized him, shouting, ‘Fellow Israelites, help! This is the man who is teaching everyone everywhere against our people, our law, and this place; more than that, he has actually brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place’ ” (Acts 21:27-28). According to Luke, these accusers had jumped to a false conclusion. “For they had previously seen Trophimus the Ephesian with him in the city, and they supposed that Paul had brought him into the temple” (v. 29). Trophimus was “a Christian from Ephesus who, with Tychicus, joined Paul and others for the apostle’s final visit to Jerusalem (Acts 20::4-5). Asian Jews mistakenly accused Paul of taking Trophimus, a Gentile, into the Temple’s Court of Israel (Acts 21:29), thus provoking mob disturbance that led to Paul’s arrest” (Harper’s Bible Dictionary, 1985, s.v. Trophimus). This (unsigned) article also points out that, “According to 2 Tim. 4:20, Trophimus (the same man?) remained at Miletus because of illness. Since Paul did not sail past Miletus en route to Rome, this note, if historical, may imply Paul’s release from Roman imprisonment, further activity in the East, and a second imprisonment” (ibid.). Loveday Alexander explains that Paul’s accusers

perceive Paul’s gospel as a direct attack on the Jewish people, the law, and the temple, a general charge which the following chapters will do their best to answer; but they also add the more specific charge (guaranteed to cause a maximum disturbance among the volatile crowds at a festival season) that Paul has brought an uncircumcised Gentile into the holy place (v. 28). This was a serious charge which would have incurred the death penalty; Jewish religious law was in this respect backed up by all the weight of Roman authority. (Loveday Alexander, The Oxford Bible Commentary, 2001, on Acts 12:27-36).

According to Christopher R. Matthews, “It was a capital offense for non-Jews to pass beyond the Court of the Gentiles; an inscription stating this has been discovered (cf. Josephus, War 5.193-194; 6.125-126)” (NOAB, 3^rd ed.,2001, on Acts 21:28). Alexander also refers to the inscriptions. “Inscriptions surviving from the temple precinct (cf. Fitzmyer 1998: 698; cited Barrett 1994-9: ii. 1020) show that visitors to the temple were clearly warned at the barrier separating the Court of the Gentiles from the inner courts that any non-Jew entering the enclosure did so at his own risk” (loc. cit.).

As a result, those “Jews from Asia” (v. 27) who accused Paul, aroused “all the city . . . and the people rushed together. They seized Paul and dragged him out of the temple, and immediately the doors were shut” (v. 30). The crowd intended a lynching (v. 31), but were stopped by the arrival of the tribune and his soldiers (v. 32). The tribune arrested Paul and had him bound with chains (v. 33), but was unable to “learn the facts” about the situation “because of the uproar” (v. 34). It was surely a mob scene. “When Paul came to the steps, the violence of the mob was so great that he had to be carried by the soldiers” (v. 35). The crowd’s cry, “Away with him!” (v. 36; cf. 22:22), reminds us–perhaps as Luke intended–of the crowd’s cry about Jesus, “Away with this fellow! Release Barabbas for us!” (Lk. 23:18). That the inner courts were locked against Paul is “a symbolic irony that would not have been lost on Luke’s readers: time and again, in Luke’s presentation, it is not Paul himself but his Jewish audiences who close the doors against him. (Alexander, ibid.).

Luke 6:1-11

The Question about the Sabbath (Mt 12.1-8; Mk 2.23-28)

6:1 One sabbath while Jesus was going through the grainfields, his disciples plucked some heads of grain, rubbed them in their hands, and ate them. 2 But some of the Pharisees said, “Why are you doing what is not lawful on the sabbath?” 3 Jesus answered, “Have you not read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4 He entered the house of God and took and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and gave some to his companions?” 5 Then he said to them, “The Son of Man is lord of the sabbath.”

The Man with a Withered Hand (Mt 12.9-14; Mk 3.1-6)

6 On another sabbath he entered the synagogue and taught, and there was a man there whose right hand was withered. 7 The scribes and the Pharisees watched him to see whether he would cure on the sabbath, so that they might find an accusation against him. 8 Even though he knew what they were thinking, he said to the man who had the withered hand, “Come and stand here.” He got up and stood there. 9 Then Jesus said to them, “I ask you, is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the sabbath, to save life or to destroy it?” 10 After looking around at all of them, he said to him, “Stretch out your hand.” He did so, and his hand was restored. 11 But they were filled with fury and discussed with one another what they might do to Jesus. (Luke 6:1-11, NRSV)

The following comments are repeated here from October 5, 2006 (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to September 28, Year Two):

The following comments are repeated here from April 18, 2005 (Monday of the week of the Fourth Sunday of Easter, Year One):

In contrast to the Pharisees’ criticism of Jesus’ disciples for plucking grain on the sabbath (Mt. 12:1-8; Mk. 2:23-28; Lk. 6:1-5) and of Jesus’ healing of the man with the withered hand (Mt. 12:9-14; Mk. 3:1-6; Lk. 6:6-11), Jesus is presented as focusing on human need. He cites Old Testament precedents for satisfying hunger, when Ahimelech gave David “holy bread” for his men (1 Sam. 21:1-6). This story was likely repeated by early Christian preachers to support their worship on Sunday rather than Saturday. “The Son of Man is lord of the sabbath” (Lk. 6:5; Mk. 2:28; Mt. 12:8). Mark includes the words, “The sabbath was made for humankind, not humankind for the sabbath” (Mk. 2:27). (Other versions have the generic sense of “man” for “humankind.”)

The Pharisees were “on to” Jesus, and “watched him to see whether he would cure on the sabbath” (Lk. 6:6). But Jesus “knew what they were thinking,” nevertheless, “he said to the man who had the withered hand, ‘Come and stand here’” (v. 8). Then he challenged the onlookers: “I ask you, is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the sabbath, to save life or to destroy it?” (v. 9). Some, including Jewish Rabbis, have pointed out that ancient Rabbis would have agreed with Jesus on this point. “Healing on the sabbath is permitted when there is a threat of mortal danger, but when there is no danger in delay, it is absolutely forbidden” (Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, I, 623, on Mt. 12:10). Jesus also put the question as a matter of life or death (Lk. 6:9; cf. Mk. 3:4). It may be that the Pharisees who confronted Jesus were not in accord with the normal Rabbinical teaching on this matter. More likely, however, the Gospels are describing growing hostility, in which this one incident was only a part, but a crucial part, as it turns out. “But they [the Pharisees] were filled with fury and discussed with one another what they might do to Jesus” (Lk. 6:11). “The Pharisees went out and immediately conspired with the Herodians against him, how to destroy him” (Mk. 3:6).

On April 30, 2007 (Monday in the week of the Fourth Sunday of Easter, Year One), comments were combined with revision and supplement from April 18, 2005 (Monday in the week of the Fourth Sunday of Easter, Year One), comments that were repeated on October 5, 2006 (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to September 28, Year Two); comments on Matthew 12:1-14 from October 19, 2005 (Wednesday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 19, Year One), were also used. The combined comments are repeated here:

These two stories are similar, for the most part in the Synoptic Gospels. For comparison of the versions in Matthew, Mark and Luke, see the table in the separate file, Sabbath Controversies. In contrast to the Pharisees’ criticism of Jesus’ disciples for plucking grain on the sabbath (Mt. 12:1-8; Mk. 2:23-28; Lk. 6:1-5) and of Jesus’ healing of the man with the withered hand (Mt. 12:9-14; Mk. 3:1-6; Lk. 6:6-11), Jesus is presented as focusing on human need. He cites Old Testament precedents for satisfying hunger, when Ahimelech gave David “holy bread” for his men (1 Sam. 21:1-6). Mark refers to Abiathar (Mk. 2:26) rather than Ahimelech (1 Sam. 21:1-6). Abiathar was priest later under David (2 Sam. 15:35), but according to Mordechai Cogan, he was “the son of Ahimelech, who escaped the slaughter of the priests of Nob and joined David’s outlaw band (1 Sam. 22:2-23)” (Harper’s Bible Dictionary, 1985, s.v. Abiathar). He may very well have been present at the incident to which Jesus’ refers. Matthew and Luke, however, apparently both omit Mark’s “incorrect” reference to Abiathar (Mk. 2:26; cf. Mt. 12:4; Lk. 6:4). Luke abbreviates this story, giving the bare essentials. Matthew includes a “denunciation of the priests in the Jerusalem Temple, possibly referring to Num. 28:9-10)” (J. Andrew Overman, NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on Mt. 12:;5-6). He quotes Hosea 6:6, “I desire mercy and not sacrifice” (quoted here, v. 7, and in 9:13; cf. Overman, on v. 7). This story was likely repeated by early Christian preachers to support their worship on Sunday rather than Saturday. “The Son of Man is lord of the sabbath” (Lk. 6:5; Mk. 2:28; Mt. 12:8). Mark includes the words, “The sabbath was made for humankind, not humankind (oJ a[nqrwpoV, ho anthrōpos) for the sabbath” (Mk. 2:27 NRSV; other versions have the generic sense of “man” for “humankind”). Dennis C. Duling says, “Mark’s sharp sabbath critique is omitted (cf. Mk. 2:27)” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Mt. 12:8).

Whereas in the first of these two stories, the Question about the Sabbath, Luke presents the shortest version and Matthew the longest, in the next story, the Man with the Withered Hand, this pattern is reversed. Where Mark and Matthew report that “they” (that is, the Pharisees of the previous account, Mk. 2:24; Mt. 12:2; cf. Lk. 6:2), acted “so that they might accuse him” (Mk. 3:2b; Mt. 12:10b), Luke is more explicit here. “ The scribes and the Pharisees watched him to see whether he would cure on the sabbath, so that they might find an accusation against him” (Lk. 6:7). “Even though he knew what they were thinking,” adds Luke, “he [Jesus] said to the man who had the withered hand, ‘Come and stand here.’ He got up and stood there” (Lk. 6:8; cf. Jn. 2:24-25). Then Luke presents the rhetorical question that underscores the point of the story. “Then Jesus said to them, ‘I ask you, is it lawful to do good or to do harm on the sabbath, to save life or to destroy it?’” (Lk. 6:9; cf. Mk. 3:4). Matthew puts this question on the lips of the opponents (Mt. 12:10b), and makes Jesus affirmative statement, “So it is lawful to do good on the sabbath” (Mt. 12:12b), conclude his brief illustrative parable, as he asks what to do if “one of you has only one sheep and it falls into a pit on the sabbath” (Mt. 12:11, a point added by Matthew). In reference to the question, Duling refers to “Lk. 14:5. See Ex. 23:5; Deut. 22:4 for helping animals. However, if an animal fell into a pit on the sabbath, the sabbath law took precedence. The animal could be fed or, as later rabbis said, devices could be set up to assist it in climbing out, but one should not lift it out; similarly Dead Sea Scrolls, Damascus Document (CD) 11:13-14” (op. cit., on Mt. 12:11). On verse 10, Duling says, “Later Israelite law allowed breaking the sabbath law in cases of immediate danger to life, but the specifics were debated.” Some, including Jewish Rabbis, have pointed out that ancient Rabbis would have agreed with Jesus on this point. “Healing on the sabbath is permitted when there is a threat of mortal danger, but when there is no danger in delay, it is absolutely forbidden” (Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, I, 623, on Mt. 12:10). Jesus also put the question as a matter of life or death (Lk. 6:9; cf. Mk. 3:4). It may be that the Pharisees who confronted Jesus were not in accord with the normal Rabbinical teaching on this matter. More likely, however, the Gospels are describing growing hostility, in which this one incident was only a part, but a crucial part, as it turns out. “But they [the Pharisees] were filled with fury and discussed with one another what they might do to Jesus” (Lk. 6:11). “The Pharisees went out and immediately conspired with the Herodians against him, how to destroy him” (Mk. 3:6).

It seems that the “plot” of the Book of Mark is the “plot” (conspiracy) against Jesus (Mk. 3:6; cf. Mt. 12:14; Lk. 6:11), which was anticipated from the beginning of the Sabbath healing account (Mk. 3:2; cf. Mt. 12:10; Lk. 6:7). One might think that it comes very early in Mark (chap. 3) as compared with Matthew and Luke, where major speeches come earlier, but given the pace of action in Mark, the timing of this conspiracy is comparable in Mark to the other two Gospels.

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net