Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) 19:4-17

Against Loose Talk

4 One who trusts others too quickly has a shallow mind,

and one who sins does wrong to himself.

5 One who rejoices in wickedness will be condemned,

6 but one who hates gossip has less evil.

7 Never repeat a conversation,

and you will lose nothing at all.

8 With friend or foe do not report it,

and unless it would be a sin for you, do not reveal it;

9 for someone may have heard you and watched you,

and in time will hate you.

10 Have you heard something? Let it die with you.

Be brave, it will not make you burst!

11 Having heard something, the fool suffers birth pangs

like a woman in labor with a child.

12 Like an arrow stuck in a person’s thigh,

so is gossip inside a fool.

13 Question a friend; perhaps he did not do it;

or if he did, so that he may not do it again.

14 Question a neighbor; perhaps he did not say it;

or if he said it, so that he may not repeat it.

15 Question a friend, for often it is slander;

so do not believe everything you hear.

16 A person may make a slip without intending it.

Who has not sinned with his tongue?

17 Question your neighbor before you threaten him;

and let the law of the Most High take its course. (Ecclesiasticus 19:4-17, NRSV)

On October 30, 2006 (Monday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 26, Year Two), comments were revised with supplement from October 25, 2004, (Monday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 26, Year Two). The comments are repeated again here with some editing and supplement.

In some printings of the NRSV (1989), the heading, “Against Loose Talk,” is used for this reading, Ecclesiasticus 19:4-17 (as indicated above). The section is described as about “gossip” by Burton L. Mack, revised by Benjamin G. Wright III, as noted yesterday (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, in a list of topics in Ecclus. 18:15-19:17). A careful reading bears this out. Ben Sira begins with a warning. “One who trusts others too quickly has a shallow mind,” he says, “and one who sins does wrong to himself” (19:4). In particular, he warns that “one who rejoices in wickedness will be condemned, / but who hates gossip has less evil” (vv. 5-6). “Never repeat a conversation,” he says, “and you will lose nothing at all” (v. 7). Discretion in this matter was important then, and is now as well. “With friend or foe do not report it,” he says, and unless it would be a sin for you, do not reveal it” (v. 8). Among these “warnings against imprudent speech,” says Harold C. Washington, “Discretion is the rule; unless by keeping silent it would be a sin (v. 8; cf. Lev. 5:1)” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on Ecclus. 19:4-17). Ben Sira warns that “someone may have heard you and watched you,” if you imprudently repeat a conversation, “and in time [that someone] will hate you” (v. 9). So Ben Sira concludes, “Have you heard something? Let it die with you. / Be brave, it will not make you burst!” (v. 10). For a fool, “having heard something” leads to his desperate need to pass it on, for he “suffers birth pangs / like a woman in labor with a child” (v. 11). Another comparison follows. “Like an arrow stuck in a person’s thigh, / so is gossip inside a fool” (v. 12).

Ben Sira turns from warnings against repeating gossip to advice about what to do when one hears gossip. Rather than rushing out to spread the “news,” one is advised to raise questions and find out the truth of the matter. “Question a friend,” he says; perhaps he did not do it; / or if he did, so that he may not do it again” (v. 13; cf. Gal 6:1; 1 Pet. 4:8). “Question a neighbor,” Ben Sira continues; “perhaps he did not say it; / or if he said it, so that he may not repeat it” (v. 14). One should not repeat what may turn out to be slander. “Question a friend,” says Ben Sira, “for often it is slander; / so do not believe everything you hear” (v. 15). Even if there is some truth in the gossip one hears, it may not represent the friend’s intentions. After all, “a person may make a slip without intending it. / Who has not sinned with his tongue?”(v. 16). Compare what Jesus said to the accusers of the woman taken in adultery: “Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her” (Jn. 8:[7]). So it is only prudent, not to say “fair,” to investigate the truth of the matter, to “question your neighbor before you threaten him; / and let the law of the Most High take its course” (v. 17).

Rather than rushing out to spread the “news,” one is advised to question what he or she hears (vv. 13-17), for “perhaps he [a friend, or a neighbor] did not do it” (vv. 13a, 14a); even so, questioning them, rather than telling others, may prevent them from doing it again (vv. 13b, 14b). What one has heard may turn out to be slander, so Ben Sira advises not to “believe everything you hear” (v. 15). After all, “A person may make a slip without intending it” (v. 16a). “Who has not sinned with his tongue?” asks Ben Sira (v. 16b). So it is only prudent, not to say “fair,” to “question your neighbor before you threaten him” (v. 17a); one should rather “Let the law of the Most High take its course.

Jonah 1:17-2:10 (Presbyterian and Lutheran traditions–see the comments for Wednesday, October 15, 2008, twelve days ago.)

Revelation 11:1-14

The Two Witnesses

11:1 Then I was given a measuring rod like a staff, and I was told, “Come and measure the temple of God and the altar and those who worship there, 2 but do not measure the court outside the temple; leave that out, for it is given over to the nations, and they will trample over the holy city for forty-two months. 3 And I will grant my two witnesses authority to prophesy for one thousand two hundred sixty days, wearing sackcloth.”

4 These are the two olive trees and the two lampstands that stand before the Lord of the earth. 5 And if anyone wants to harm them, fire pours from their mouth and consumes their foes; anyone who wants to harm them must be killed in this manner. 6 They have authority to shut the sky, so that no rain may fall during the days of their prophesying, and they have authority over the waters to turn them into blood, and to strike the earth with every kind of plague, as often as they desire.

7 When they have finished their testimony, the beast that comes up from the bottomless pit will make war on them and conquer them and kill them, 8 and their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city that is prophetically called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified. 9 For three and a half days members of the peoples and tribes and languages and nations will gaze at their dead bodies and refuse to let them be placed in a tomb; 10 and the inhabitants of the earth will gloat over them and celebrate and exchange presents, because these two prophets had been a torment to the inhabitants of the earth.

11 But after the three and a half days, the breath of life from God entered them, and they stood on their feet, and those who saw them were terrified. 12 Then they heard a loud voice from heaven saying to them, “Come up here!” And they went up to heaven in a cloud while their enemies watched them. 13 At that moment there was a great earthquake, and a tenth of the city fell; seven thousand people were killed in the earthquake, and the rest were terrified and gave glory to the God of heaven.

14 The second woe has passed. The third woe is coming very soon. (Revelation 11:1-14, NRSV)

On November 6, 2007 (Tuesday in the week of the Sunday closest to November 2, Year One), when the reading was Revelation 11:1-19, comments were repeated from October 30 and 31, 2006 (Monday and Tuesday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 26, Year Two), when comments were combined and revised from October 25 and 26, 2004, two years earlier, and from November 3, 2005 (Tuesday in the week of the Sunday closest to November 2, Year One). Relevant comments are repeated here; others will be used for tomorrow’s reading.

As noted in the comments for last Saturday (Oct. 25, 2008), the reading then was taken from an interlude between the sixth (Rev. 9:13-21) and seventh (11:14-19) trumpets. Today’s reading continues in the interlude, and tomorrow’s will continue with the seventh trumpet.

In the second vision between the sixth and seventh trumpets, the scene is getting more complex with John measuring the temple and the altar and those who worship there (11:1). According to Bruce M. Metzger, the measuring of “the sanctuary and those who worship there” is “with a view to their preservation (as in Zech. 2:1-5); compare Ezek. 40:3-42:20)” (NOAB, 2^rd ed., 1994, on Rev. 11:1). The nations, however, are not granted this protection, for John is told not to “measure the court outside the temple” which “is given over to the nations, and they will trample over the holy city for forty-two months” (v. 2). The two witnesses (v. 3) are “the two olive trees and two lampstands” (cf. Zech. 4:2-3). They have “authority to prophesy for one thousand two hundred sixty days, wearing sackcloth” (v. 3). They are “unnamed but resembling Zerubbabel and Joshua (Zech. 3:1-4:14) as well as Elijah (vv. 5-6; 2 Kings 1:10) and Moses (v. 6; Ex. 7:17, 19),” says Metzger, who further suggests that the “sackcloth” is “a sign that their prophecy was of repentance” (on v. 3). Their witness is powerful, like that of Moses and Elijah. Their authority brings judgment on the earth (v. 6), but draws them into conflict–war–with the “beast from the bottomless pit” who “will make war on them and kill them” (v. 7). They lie dead “in the street of the great city that is prophetically called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified” (v. 8). “The great city is identified here prophetically, i.e., allegorically or spiritually rather than literally by its proper name. While the majority of scholars understand the city as Jerusalem, others suggest that the city is Rome, as is Babylon in 17:1-6" (Jean-Pierre Ruiz, NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on v. 8). Of course, “the Lord was crucified” in Jerusalem, not Rome (unless that phrase is also meant allegorically). Metzger notes that “the name Sodom is applied to Jerusalem in Isa. 1:10, Jer. 23:14; Ezek. 16:46-56” (on v. 8). The adversary is “the beast that comes up from the bottomless pit” who “will make war on them and kill them” (v. 7). “For three and a half days,” says John, “members of the peoples and tribes and languages and nations will gaze at their dead bodies [i.e., bodies of the two witnesses, vv. 3, 7] and refuse to let them be placed in a tomb” (v. 9). This “celebration” will continue as “the inhabitants of the earth will gloat over them and celebrate and exchange presents because these two prophets had been a torment to the inhabitants of the earth” (v. 10).

But that is not the end of the story, for John describes a dramatic reversal, as God resurrects the two witnesses. “But after the three and a half days, the breath of life from God entered them, and they stood on their feet, and those who saw them were terrified” (v. 11). The witnesses are called up to heaven as judgment continues on earth. “Then,” says John, “they heard a loud voice from heaven saying to them, ‘Come up here!’ And they went up to heaven in a cloud while their enemies watched them” (v. 12). “At that moment,” adds John, “there was a great earthquake, and a tenth of the city fell; seven thousand people were killed in the earthquake, and the rest were terrified and gave glory to the God of heaven” (v. 13). In spite of the deadly confrontation, we see here the pattern of Christian hope. “But our citizenship is in heaven, and it is from there that we are expecting a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. He will transform the body of our humiliation that it may be conformed to the body of his glory, by the power that also enables him to make all things subject to himself (Phil. 3:20-21; cf. 2:9-11).

We are told that “the second woe,” that is, the plague announced by the sixth trumpet (Rev. 9:13), has passed (11:14; cf. the fifth trumpet, 9:1 and the passing of the first woe, 9:12). The seventh trumpet (11:14-19), described tomorrow, will be the third of three woes (9:12; cf. 8:13); a new series, of the seven bowls of the wrath of God, comes later (15:1-16:21).

Luke 11:14-26

Jesus and Beelzebul (Mt 12.22-32; Mk 3.19b-30)

14 Now he was casting out a demon that was mute; when the demon had gone out, the one who had been mute spoke, and the crowds were amazed. 15 But some of them said, “He casts out demons by Beelzebul, the ruler of the demons.” 16 Others, to test him, kept demanding from him a sign from heaven. 17 But he knew what they were thinking and said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself becomes a desert, and house falls on house. 18 If Satan also is divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand? -for you say that I cast out the demons by Beelzebul. 19 Now if I cast out the demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your exorcists cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges. 20 But if it is by the finger of God that I cast out the demons, then the kingdom of God has come to you. 21 When a strong man, fully armed, guards his castle, his property is safe. 22 But when one stronger than he attacks him and overpowers him, he takes away his armor in which he trusted and divides his plunder. 23 Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.

The Return of the Unclean Spirit (Mt 12.43-45)

24 “When the unclean spirit has gone out of a person, it wanders through waterless regions looking for a resting place, but not finding any, it says, ‘I will return to my house from which I came.’ 25 When it comes, it finds it swept and put in order. 26 Then it goes and brings seven other spirits more evil than itself, and they enter and live there; and the last state of that person is worse than the first.” (Luke 11:14-26, NRSV)

On May 26, 2007 (Saturday in the week of the Seventh Sunday of Easter, Year One), comments on Luke 11:14-23 were repeated from October 30, 2006 (Monday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 26, Year Two), when they were combined with revision and supplement from October 25, 2004 (Monday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 26, Year Two), and from May 14, 2005 (Saturday of the week of the Seventh Sunday of Easter, Year One). The revised comments are repeated here with some editing and supplement. Parallel passages to this reading in Mark are presented in a separate file, Jesus and Beelzebul. Recent comments based on Matthew’s version may be found in the Archives for October 26 and 27, 2007 (Friday and Saturday in the week of the the Sunday closest to October 19, Year One). Recent comments based on Mark’s version may be found in the Archives for February 19, 2008 (Tuesday in the week of the Second Sunday of Lent, Year Two), and for August 3, 2008 (the Sunday closest to August 3, Year Two).

Luke reports that Jesus “was casting out a demon that was mute” (Lk. 11:14a). One would think the demon was cast out from the mute man (oJ kwfovV, ho kōphos, v. 14b), not that the demon ( daimovnion, daimonion) itself was mute (kwfovn, kōphon); compare “a demoniac who was mute (a[nqrwpon kwfo;n daimonizovmenon, anthrōpon kōphon daimonizomenon) was brought to him” (Mt. 9:32). But the apparent addition in later manuscripts of Luke does not change the characterization of the demon, rather than the man, as “mute.” The shorter text reads daimovnion kwfovn (daimonion kōphon), “demon [who was] mute” (p^{45, 75} x A* B L and others); the longer text reads daimovnion [, kai; aujto; h\n] kwfovn, daimonion, and it was mute (A^c C K W X and others, the text printed by the UBS Greek New Testament, 3^rd ed., 1975). Note the uncertainty indicated by the brackets and the letter “D,” which “shows that there is a very high degree of doubt concerning the reading selected for the text” (ibid., p. xiii). According to Robert H. Stein, the description of “a demon that was mute” (Lk. 11:14) means that “this particular demon was mute, i.e., it caused ‘muteness’ (cf. Matt. 9:33, but in 12:22 the demon also caused blindness)” (Luke, The New American Commentary, vol. 24, 1992, p. 330, on Lk. 11:14). Nevertheless, the statement is awkward, unusual for Luke.

In any event, Luke’s continuation is clear, “when the demon had gone out, the one who had been mute (oJ kwfovV, ho kōphos) spoke, and the crowds were amazed (Lk. 11:14b; cf. Mt. 9:33; 12:22). Jesus’ exorcism here evokes the criticism of some, in Matthew “the Pharisees,” who “said, ‘He casts out demons by Beelzebul, the ruler of the demons’ ” (Lk. 11:15; cf. Mk. 3:22; Mt. 9:34; 12:24; cf. also Jn. 7:20; 8:48, 52; 10:20). “Others [from the crowds, v. 14, perhaps Pharisees (cf. Mt.)], to test him, kept demanding from him a sign from heaven” (Lk. 11:16). In Mark, Jesus’ response to the charge that he casts out demons by Beelzebul seems directed to the scribes who made the charge. “And he called them [i.e. ‘the scribes who came down from Jerusalem,’ Mk. 3:22] to him, and spoke to them in parables, ‘How can Satan cast out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand” (Mk. 3:23-24, cf. vv. 25-26). In Matthew and Luke, it appears that the charge was made to the crowd, not directly to Jesus. “But he [i.e., Jesus] knew what they were thinking,” says Luke, “and said to them [i.e., apparently to the crowd in general, in particular to his accusers], ‘Every kingdom divided against itself becomes a desert, and house falls on house’ ” (Lk. 11:17). Matthew puts it this way: “He [i.e., Jesus] knew what they were thinking and said to them [also to the crowds Mt. 12:15, but especially to the Pharisees, v. 24], ‘Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand” (Mt. 12:25).

Jesus explains his figurative response with a rhetorical question: “If Satan also is divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand–for you say that I cast out the demons by Beelzebul” (Lk. 11:18; cf. Mt. 12:26). And Jesus turns the charge against his questioners. “Now if I cast out the demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your exorcists (oiJ uiJoi; uJmw:n, hoi huioi hymōn, lit. ‘your sons’) cast them out. Therefore they will be your judges” (Lk. 11:19); compare, “If I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your own exorcists (oiJ uiJoi; uJmw:n, hoi huioi hymōn, lit. ‘your sons’) cast cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges” (Mt. 12:27). These statements are nearly identical, both in English and in Greek. Luke’s initial “Now” translates the initial conjunction dev (de), which here is essentially the equivalent of Matthew’s initial conjunction kaiv (kai), untranslated in the NRSV (“and” AV/KJV, TNIV). In Greek, the noun demons has the definite article in both versions: ta; daimovnia (ta daimonia, “the demons”), though it is omitted in English translations (Mt. 12:27 NRSV, AV/KJV, TNIV; also omitted in Lk. 11:19 in the three versions). With the exception of NRSV in Luke 11:19, which includes the English article, the translators have apparently understood the Greek noun with the article, ta; daimovnia, ta daimonia, in the generic sense, “demons.” That’s what Jesus does (among other things), he casts out demons. Except for minor differences in word order, there are no further difference in the wording in Greek. But again, the translators–to some extent, perhaps, a matter of style or taste–show a minor difference in the English wording. In Matthew the NRSV adds “own” (“your own exorcists”), perhaps to indicate the force of what is literally “sons.” In the authorized version, uiJoiv (huioi, “sons”) is translated “children” in Matthew 12:27 (AV/KJV), but “sons” in Luke 11:19 (AV/KJV). Today’s New International Version has a similar variation, with “people” (Mt. 12:27) and “followers” (Lk. 11:19). As for the other exorcists mentioned here, “your sons” in the literal translation, Dennis C. Duling refers to “itinerant Jewish exorcists” mentioned in Acts 19:13-14 (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Mt. 12:27).

Jesus then draws his conclusion, announcing good news: “But if it is by the finger (davktuloV, daktylos) of God (Lk.)/Spirit (pneu:ma, pneuma) of God (Mt.) that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come to you” (Lk. 11:20; Mt. 12:28). In Greek the only difference in wording here is Luke’s word for “finger” where Matthew has “Spirit.” By “finger of God,” Jesus refers to the Egyptian magicians’ reaction to the third Plague (gnats). “This is the finger of God! (Ex. 8:19). Matthew interprets the metaphor, but both expressions point to God’s power behind Jesus’ exorcisms. This victory over Satanic powers is celebrated at some length in the Book of Revelation, and also by Paul: “If God is for us, who is against us?” (Rom. 8:31).

Jesus presents another analogy. “When a strong man, fully armed, guards his castle, his property is safe. But when one stronger than he attacks him and overpowers him, he takes away his armor in which he trusted and divides his plunder” (Lk. 11:21-22; cf. Mk. 3:27; Mt. 12:29). A similar saying occurs in the Gospel of Thomas: “Jesus said: It is impossible for anyone to enter the house of the strong man and take him (or, it) by violence, unless (eij mhvti) he (first) bind his hands; then (tovte) he will plunder his house” (Gospel of Thomas 35, trans. Bruce M. Metzger, in Kurt Aland, ed., Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum, 3^rd ed., 1965). “The strong man,” says Duling, “Satan, is overcome by one even stronger. Jesus’ exorcisms are seen as evidence of this victory” (op. cit., on Mt. 12:29). The section concludes with Jesus statement that, “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters” (Lk 11:23 = Mt. 12:30; the verses are identical in Greek and in English NRSV). According to Marion Lloyd Soards, “This statement registers the uncompromising demands of Jesus’ call to discipleship, and in relation to the preceding parable the saying declares that in the struggle between Jesus and Beelzebul neutrality is not an option” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on Lk. 11:23).

According to Eric Franklin:

Exorcism played a large part in the ministry of Jesus and, indeed, in that of the early church. Demon possession was widely believed in at that time and, as this episode makes clear, Jesus was by no means the only exorcist around. His opponents do not attack him for performing exorcisms, but rather question his motivation and the power by which he was able to do them: he was accused of casting out demons ‘by Beelzebul, the ruler of the demons’ . . . a local or Syrian deity who was treated by Hebrew thought as an alien power, hostile to YHWH.. . . With a growing appreciation of the power of YHWH, these other gods were undeified and then treated as hostile agents of Satan. Jesus, therefore, is here accused of being an agent of Satan. On what grounds would they make this charge? Unlike any comparable Jewish exorcists, he did not use prayer or claim to draw on the strength of the Jewish tradition. He acted on his own authority and outside the covenant. Moreover, in his sitting loose to the law and its demands, he could be seen to be despising the covenant itself. All this could make him open to the charge of being a godless person. (The Oxford Bible Commentary, 2001, p. 943, on Lk. 11:14-36).

But the charge is nonsense, as Franklin notes. “Satan was unlikely to be wishing to destroy his supporters. And were their associates also to be charged with being agents of Satan?” (ibid.). Franklin calls attention to the importance of Jesus’ understanding of the significance of his exorcisms. “If Jesus was doing his works by the finger of God–if he could be acknowledged as a man of God, reflecting his character and his goodness–then his exorcisms, far from witnessing to his service of Satan, witness rather to his being the agent of the kingdom of God. They show that, through him, ‘the kingdom of God has come to you’. (pp. 943-944). The exorcisms do not authenticate Jesus, says Franklin; rather “It is he who authenticates them and can enable them to be seen as signs of the presence of the Kingdom. So Jesus sees himself as overpowering Satan” (p. 944).

In the subsequent passage which warns of the problem when an unclean spirit returns to one who was once exorcised (Lk. 11:24-26; Mt. 12:43-45), the two versions are almost verbatim except for Matthew’s final statement, “So will it be also with this evil generation” (Mt. 12:45 at the end). Compare the following text of Luke with Matthew’s differences marked by strike-out (omissions) or bold (additions) print.

“When ( dev, de) the unclean spirit has gone out of a person, it wanders through waterless regions looking for a resting place, but not finding any (mh; euJrivskon, mē heuriskon) it finds none (ouc euJrivskei, ouch heuriskei). Then (tovte, tote ) it says, ‘I will return to my house from which I came.’ When it comes, it finds it empty, (scolavzonta [kaiv], scholazonta [kai]) swept and put in order. Then it goes and brings along (meq j eJautou:, meth heautou) seven other spirits more evil than itself, and they enter and live there; and the last state of that person is worse than the first. So will it be also with this evil generation.”

Matthew uses the conjunction de (de, untranslated in English) to connect to the preceding account of the request for a sign (Mt. 12:38-42), which comes later in Luke (Lk. 11:29-32). Apart from Matthew’s final reference to “this evil generation” (Mt. 12:45), which repeats the description of those who requested the sign (vv. 38-39), his variations from Luke’s wording are minor differences of style that add some emphasis. In Luke, this statement about the returning unclean spirit follows directly upon the Beelzebul controversy (Lk. 11:14-23; cf. Mt. 12:22-30; Mk. 3:22-27), and is focused more on Jesus’ work of exorcism than as a criticism of his accusers. (Such criticism will follow; cf. Lk. 11:29-54).

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net