Hosea 13:4-14

4 Yet I have been the LORD your God

ever since the land of Egypt;

you know no God but me,

and besides me there is no savior.

5 It was I who fed you in the wilderness,

in the land of drought.

6 When I fed them, they were satisfied;

they were satisfied, and their heart was proud;

therefore they forgot me.

7 So I will become like a lion to them,

like a leopard I will lurk beside the way.

8 I will fall upon them like a bear robbed of her cubs,

and will tear open the covering of their heart;

there I will devour them like a lion,

as a wild animal would mangle them.

9 I will destroy you, O Israel;

who can help you?

10 Where now is your king, that he may save you?

Where in all your cities are your rulers,

of whom you said,

“Give me a king and rulers”?

11 I gave you a king in my anger,

and I took him away in my wrath.

12 Ephraim’s iniquity is bound up;

his sin is kept in store.

13 The pangs of childbirth come for him,

but he is an unwise son;

for at the proper time he does not present himself

at the mouth of the womb.

14 Shall I ransom them from the power of Sheol?

Shall I redeem them from Death?

O Death, where are your plagues?

O Sheol, where is your destruction?

Compassion is hidden from my eyes. (Hosea 13:4-14, NRSV)

The following comments are repeated here from October 8, 2006 (the Sunday closest to October 5, Year Two

Hosea, chapter thirteen begins with reference to Ephraim’s exalted position in Israel (Hos. 13:1b), “When Ephraim spoke, there was trembling” (v. 1a), but it turns immediately to Ephraim’s guilt: “but he incurred guilt through Baal and died” (v. 1c). The sinning with idols continues: “‘Sacrifice to these,’ they say. / People are kissing calves!” (v. 2). The fact that Ephraim cannot endure and survive in such circumstances is pictured as being “like the morning mist / or like the dew that goes away early” (v. 3a, b), “like chaff that swirls from the threshing floor / or like smoke from a window” (v. 3c, d).

The LORD states his strong claim on Israel. “Yet I have been the LORD your God / ever since the land of Egypt; / you know no God but me, / and beside me there is no savior” (v. 4). “It was I,” says the LORD, “who fed you in the wilderness, / in the land of drought” (v. 5). The word “therefore” (NK2-lf1, ‘al-kēn) in the next verse has a touch of irony. “When I fed them, they were satisfied; / they were satisfied, and their heart was proud; / therefore (NK2-lf1, ‘al-kēn) they forgot me” (v. 6). They forgot God because they were satisfied? Or because their heart was proud? Perhaps it works either way. As punishment, the LORD “will fall upon them like a bear robbed of her cubs” (v. 8a), tearing, devouring “like a lion” and mangling “as a wild animal” (av. 8).

This destruction is clearly aimed at Israel (v. 9). “Where now is your king, that he may save you?” asks the LORD (v. 10a). Where, he asks, are the rulers they requested? Such a request is reported in 1 Samuel 8. “I gave you a king in my anger,” says the LORD (Hos. 13:11a; Gregory Mobley refers to 1 Sam. 12, NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, in ref. to Hos. 13:11a), “and I took him away in my wrath” (13:11b). Whether Hosea’s statement refers to Saul or some later king, the real point is that God himself is their LORD and savior (v. 4).

Ephraim’s persistence in sin (v. 12) is described as though the child being born suffers “the pangs of childbirth”; “an unwise son . . . does not present himself / at the mouth of the womb” (v. 13). Ehud Ben Zvi comments:

The son will suffer the pains associated with childbirth. This child is so unwise that ‘at the right time he does not come to the birthstool,’ i.e. he resists birth, endangering himself and the one who gives birth and prolonging her (and here his) pain. The birth here symbolizes the turning of the heart necessary for a new beginning. In other words, if Ephraim repents soon it will end its suffering and begin a new era of divine blessing, but Ephraim, a foolish son, does not do so. (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, on Hos. 13:13)

The LORD asks, “Shall I ransom them from the power of Sheol? / Shall I redeem them from Death?” (v. 14a, b). Mobley, apparently in light of the final line, “Compassion is hidden from my eyes” (v. 14e), says, “In this judgment speech, compassion is hidden, unlike 11:8” (op. cit., on v. 14). Ben Zvi has a different slant: “The LORD will save Israel even from Sheol, if Israel repents” (on v. 14). With similar confidence in the LORD’s mercy and power to save from death, and the recent demonstration of that power in Christ’s resurrection, Paul is able to say, “Death has been swallowed up in victory” (1 Cor. 15:54, citing Isa. 25:8) and to ask, rhetorically, since he knows the answer, “Where, O death, is your victory? / Where, O death, is your sting?” (1 Cor. 15:55, citing Hos. 13.14. According to John Barclay, Paul “wilfully” reads Hosea 13:14 “against its grain: the prophet invited death to wield its sting, but Paul employs his words to taunt death with its ultimate powerlessness” (The Oxford Bible Commentary, 2001, on 1 Cor. 15:55). For the Hosea text, the possibility of mercy remains (Ben Zvi), if hidden (Mobley); but we should not discount Paul’s use of the text.

Hosea 5:8-6:6 (Presbyterian and Lutheran traditions–see the comments on this passage three days ago, Thursday, October 2, 2008)

1 Corinthians 2:6-16

The True Wisdom of God

6 Yet among the mature we do speak wisdom, though it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to perish. 7 But we speak God’s wisdom, secret and hidden, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. 8 None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9 But, as it is written,

“What no eye has seen, nor ear heard,

nor the human heart conceived,

what God has prepared for those who love him”–

10 these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. 11 For what human being knows what is truly human except the human spirit that is within? So also no one comprehends what is truly God’s except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit that is from God, so that we may understand the gifts bestowed on us by God. 13 And we speak of these things in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual things to those who are spiritual.

14 Those who are unspiritual do not receive the gifts of God’s Spirit, for they are foolishness to them, and they are unable to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 15 Those who are spiritual discern all things, and they are themselves subject to no one else’s scrutiny.

16 “For who has known the mind of the Lord

so as to instruct him?”

But we have the mind of Christ. (1 Corinthians 2:6-16, NRSV)

During the period of Lent in Year Two, the weekday Epistle readings are taken from 1 Corinthians from Monday in the week of the First Sunday of Lent (Feb. 11, 2008) through Tuesday in the week of the Fifth Sunday of Lent (Mar. 11, 2008). Some of the Epistle readings of Holy Week and the week of Easter are also from 1 Corinthians. The present reading from 1 Corinthians is the first of six Daily Office Lectionary readings for successive Sundays. Comments for today’s reading are drawn from earlier readings, including October 8, 2006 (the Sunday closest to October 5, Year Two), September 19-20, 2007 (Wed. and Thur. in the week of the Sunday closest to September 14, Year One), and from February 13 and 14, 2008 (Wed. and Thur. in the week of the First Sunday of Lent, Year Two).

Early in First Corinthians, Paul has defined his gospel in contrast with “eloquent wisdom” (1 Cor. 1:17). “For Christ did not send me to baptize but to proclaim the gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom (sofiva/ lovgou, sophia logou), so that the cross of Christ might not be emptied of its power” (1 Cor. 1:17). “When I came to you, brothers and sisters,” says Paul, “I did not come proclaiming the mystery of God to you in lofty words or wisdom (kaq j uJperoch;n lovgou h] sofivaV, kath’ hyperochēn ē sophias, lit. ‘in/with superiority of word or wisdom’)” (2:1). His focus was rather on “Jesus Christ, and him crucified” (v. 2). But he offers a clarification–not to say, caveat–when he claims to speak wisdom in a certain context. “Yet among the mature (teleioi) we do speak wisdom (sophia), though it is not a wisdom (sophia) of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to perish” (2:6). “But we speak God’s wisdom (sophia), secret and hidden, which God decreed before the ages for our glory” (v. 7). We can trace the beginnings of philosophy (philosophia, “love of wisdom”) to the ancient Greeks. There is also an important “Wisdom” (hm!k4H!, chokmāh) tradition in the Hebrew Bible (e.g. Proverbs, Ecclesiastes) and Apocrypha (Sirach, the Wisdom of Solomon) and elsewhere among the ancient Jews. We learn from his writings, in First Corinthians and elsewhere, that Paul was skilled in using and interpreting the Jewish wisdom tradition and skilled in the use of Greco-Roman rhetoric, but here he insists on “the surpassing value” of the “foolishness” of proclaiming “Christ crucified” (1 Cor. 1:22; cf. Phil. 3:8).

Corinth was destroyed by Roman armed forces in 146 B.C. and lay in ruins for a century. Shortly before his death in March of 44 B.C., Julius Caesar ordered that the city be rebuilt as a Roman colony (Ben Witherington III, Conflict and Community in Corinth, 1994, pp. 5-6). So a century later, Paul found a city that was more Roman than Greek, by this time “well on the way to becoming not only the largest but also the most prosperous city in all of Greece” (ibid., p. 5). The people of Corinth were proud, industrious, in a major commercial center. They had their own biennial games like the Olympic games, and they had contests in rhetoric with prizes for skill in declamation. Witherington suggests that Paul studiously avoided presenting his gospel as the effect of rhetorical skill–certainly not in the manner of the Sophists, whose “rhetoric was deplored as manipulation without substance” (ibid., p. 42). “I did not come proclaiming the mystery of God to you in lofty words or wisdom” (1 Cor. 2:1).

But we must take Paul’s disclaimer with respect to rhetorical skill for what it is. His education, first in Tarsus, later in Jerusalem, would have included rhetoric, or the art of speech-making, as a major component. “Early in the first century A.D.,” says Witherington, “rhetoric became the primary discipline in Roman higher education” (ibid., p. 40, citing S. F. Bonner). “Rhetors,” says Witherington, “were found in all of the great cities of the Roman Empire, especially in university towns like Tarsus and even in strongly Jewish cities like Jerusalem.”

Ancient rhetoric could have a serious purpose, in courts of law or the Roman Senate, for example, but it came to be a kind of sporting event in some places, including Corinth.

Declamation, which at its best was a school exercise of practice on purely hypothetical topics, including trivial subjects such as the praiseworthiness of a flea or the shameful baldness of a man’s head, became a form of public entertainment. Rhetoric became an end in itself, mere ornamentation, elocution, and execution with an aim to please the crowd. This sort of rhetoric without serious content or intent, other than to play to and sway a crowd’s emotions, was precisely the sort of nonthreatening and apolitical rhetoric that Roman society could encourage and enjoy. (Ibid., pp. 41-42)

Paul’s gospel, he says, was nothing of that sort. “Problems arose, however,” says Witherington, “after he left and had been gone for some time, in particular, when Apollos went to Corinth and used an Alexandrian rhetorical style of preaching and teaching that Paul had avoided. This led to a comparison of Paul’s rhetoric with that of Apollos and with Sophistic rhetoric in general” (Witherington, p. 214). But Paul is clear. “My speech and my proclamation were not with plausible words of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might rest not on human wisdom but on the power of God” (1 Cor. 2:4-5).

But as today’s reading begins, Paul’s emphasis changes. On the other hand, he says, “among the mature (tevleioi, teleioi) we do speak wisdom” (v. 6), but it is not the world’s kind of wisdom; it is rather “God's wisdom, secret and hidden, which God decreed before the ages for our glory” (v. 7). It is wisdom that “God has revealed to us through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God” (v. 10). Paul distinguishes human wisdom–even the best of human wisdom–from divine wisdom. He explains that just as the human spirit “knows what is truly human . . . so also no one comprehends what is truly God’s except the Spirit of God” (v. 11). But it is just this Spirit of God that Christian believers have received. “Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit that is from God, so that we may understand the gifts bestowed on us by God” (v. 12). And Paul defines his ministry as through the Holy Spirit. “And we speak of these things,” he says, “in words not taught by human wisdom (ajnqrwpivnh sofiva, anthrōpinē sophia) but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual things (pneumatikav, pneumatika) to those who are spiritual (pneumatikoiv,, pneumatikoi)” (v. 13).

By way of contrast, says Paul, “Those who are unspiritual (yuciko;V . . . a[nqrwpoV, psychikos . . . anthrōpos) do not receive the gifts of God’s Spirit, for they are foolishness to them, and they are unable to understand them because they are spiritually (pneumatikw:V, pneumatikōs) discerned” (v. 14). “Those who are spiritual ( oJ . . . pneumatikovV, ho . . . pneumatikos),” says Paul, “discern all things, and they are themselves subject to no one else’s scrutiny” (v. 15). And Paul supports his position here by quoting Isaiah. “For who has known the mind of the Lord / so as to instruct him?” (v. 16a, citing Isa. 40:13; cf. Rom. 11:34). And on that basis, Paul asserts, “But we have the mind of Christ” (v. 16b).

Some people suggest that the three kinds of people described in 1 Corinthians chapters 2 and 3 represent Paul’s use of the terminology of other people, perhaps leaders in the church of Corinth or “proto-Gnostics” within and/or outside of the Corinthian church: (1) the “unspiritual” (2:14 NRSV) or “natural” (AV/KJV), (2) the “spiritual’ (v. 13), and those who are “people of the flesh” (savrkinoi, sarkinoi, 3:1, sarkikoiv, sarkikoi, 3:3), who are infants (nhvpioi, nēpioi) who need “milk, not solid food” (v. 2). Richard A. Horsley suggests that Paul is writing, ironically, “in the language of the spiritual people [at Corinth] who have received the heavenly wisdom, which is identical with the Spirit (NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on 2:11-14). He adds (on vv. 14-15), that Paul is “perhaps quoting principles of the Corinthian spiritual people.”

But Ben Witherington III takes this language seriously as that of Paul himself. “When Paul speaks in v. 14 of the psychikos person, he means the “natural person,” the human being with a normal physical life and natural human faculties, but without the Holy Spirit. He is not speaking of a “soulish” person, much less a “carnal” Christian” (op. cit., p. 128). He adds that “the non-Christian, using his or her natural faculties, is not able to understand or judge spiritual matters (v. 14).” (p. 128).

The problem, then, in Corinth is not that some Christians are not spiritual or do not have the Spirit or mind of Christ. It is, rather, that though all the Corinthian Christians have the Spirit they are not living as spiritual persons ought to live. They are acting like non-Christians, and Paul’s basic response is “STOP!” Their practice has not caught up with what they have accepted in principle. Their cultural assumptions have not been critically evaluated in light of their Christian faith and of the presence of God in their lives. (p. 129)

Verses 6-16 must be read very carefully with the following points in mind:

First, Paul continues to address all the Corinthians as Christians who have the Spirit. The section ends with the statement that “we”–that is, both Paul and the Corinthians–“have the mind of Christ,” and in v. 12 Paul writes: “We have the Spirit of God.”

Second, Paul is not trying to give either an ontology lesson about God’s nature (that is, that God is a being with a spirit, much like humans),nor is he trying, by and large, to teach spiritual anthropology

Third, Paul uses eschatological and apocalyptic language to describe the revelation of God in Christ crucified. What he says should be judged according to the kind of language he is using.

The link between God and Christians is the Spirit. The believers may know God because the believer has the Spirit, not because she or he has received some advanced course in esoteric human rhetoric or wisdom. One knows God only in God’s self-revelation by the Spirit. Humans cannot reason their way up to God. (Witherington, p. 126)

As we look ahead, we see that Paul applies this analysis to the problem of factionalism addressed earlier (1:10-16). But that leads us beyond today’s reading into chapter 3.

Matthew 14:1-12

The Death of John the Baptist (Lk 9.7-9; Mk 6.14-29)

14:1 At that time Herod the ruler heard reports about Jesus; 2 and he said to his servants, “This is John the Baptist; he has been raised from the dead, and for this reason these powers are at work in him.” 3 For Herod had arrested John, bound him, and put him in prison on account of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife, 4 because John had been telling him, “It is not lawful for you to have her.” 5 Though Herod wanted to put him to death, he feared the crowd, because they regarded him as a prophet. 6 But when Herod’s birthday came, the daughter of Herodias danced before the company, and she pleased Herod 7 so much that he promised on oath to grant her whatever she might ask. 8 Prompted by her mother, she said, “Give me the head of John the Baptist here on a platter.” 9 The king was grieved, yet out of regard for his oaths and for the guests, he commanded it to be given; 10 he sent and had John beheaded in the prison. 11 The head was brought on a platter and given to the girl, who brought it to her mother. 12 His disciples came and took the body and buried it; then they went and told Jesus. (Matthew 14:1-12, NRSV)

On June 4, 2008 (Wednesday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 1, Year Two), comments were repeated from November 8, 2007 (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to November 2, Year One), when comments were repeated with editing and supplement from November 3, 2005 (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to November 2, Year One), with some reference to earlier comments on Mark’s version. The revised comments are repeated again here.

For recent comments on Mark’s version of this reading, see the Archive for March 27, 2008 (Wednesday in the week of the Third Sunday of Lent, Year Two). For recent comments on Luke’s version, see the Archive for May 12, 2007 (Saturday in the week of the Fifth Sunday of Easter, Year One). For parallel passages for this reading see the separate file, Opinions about Jesus, Death of John the Baptist.

Consider the sequence of events in the three Gospels as presented in the following table:

In the above table, bold-face references are used for sections that are in sequence within that Gospel. Other references indicate sections repeated from another sequence for comparison with the other Gospels. The reference to Luke 4:16-30, Jesus is Rejected at Nazareth, for example, is out of sequence as compared with the order of events in Mark’s Gospel. So the Luke 4:16-30 reference is not in bold-face type. The table also shows that, apart from two verses in Mark (Mk. 6:30-32, the Return of the Apostles), both Matthew and Mark present the account of the Death of John the Baptist (Mt. 14:3-12; Mk. 6:17-19; cf. Lk. 3:19-20) and the Feeding of the Five thousand (Mt. 14:13-21; Mk. 6:32-44; Lk. 9:10b-17; Jn. 6:1-15) juxtaposed in sequence. Both Matthew and Mark likely did this intentionally, to put the contrast in stark relief between Satan’s banquet–that is, the banquet thrown by Herod Antipas at which John’s severed head was brought in on a platter–and the banquet of the Lord where five thousand were fed.

Luke’s variation from Mark’s order in reporting the death of John the Baptist in chapter 3 has been understood by some, Hans Conzelmann, for instance, as an indication that Luke regarded John as the last of the prophets of the previous dispensation. He seeks to separate the ministries of John and of Jesus into separate historical periods.

The reference to the imprisonment [of John the Baptist] in iii, 19 f. divides the section concerning John from the section concerning Jesus in the sense of drawing a distinction between the epochs of salvation, for which xvi, 16 provides the clue. Now the way is open for the story of Jesus. The fact that the activity of the two still overlaps cannot be entirely eliminated, but Luke deprives it of any real significance. According to iii, 21 f. Jesus is baptized as one of the people, like everyone else [contrast Mk. 1:9-11]. Luke excludes any suggestion that John plays an important part in the incident. This is in keeping with his whole conception of the significance of John. (The Theology of St. Luke, trans., Geoffrey Buswell, 1961, p. 21)

The original title of Conzelmann’s book, Die Mitte der Zeit (i.e. “The Middle of Time”), implied that the period of Jesus’ ministry on earth was the center of time in God’s plan of salvation, preceded by the time of the prophets, and followed by the age of the church (2^nd ed., 1957). The title in English, The Theology of St. Luke, doesn’t so clearly underscore this point. We might have expected such a perspective from Luke the historian, but of course this is at most is only one aspect of Luke’s vision of the beginnings of Christianity in the Roman Empire. All of the Gospels report the death of John as a past event. Herod “had sent men who arrested John” (Mk. 6:17; cf. Mt. 14:3; Lk. 9:9), an event called to mind here in connection with Herod’s guilty conscience.

In Mark and Matthew, the account of Herod’s banquet and the death of John follows notice that King Herod Antipas had heard about Jesus (Mk. 6:14-16; Mt. 14:1-2; cf. Lk. 9:7-9). Herod heard that people were saying “John the baptizer has been raised from the dead” (Mk. 6:14b; cf. Lk. 9:7b). Mark reports the speculation of others that Jesus was Elijah, or one of the prophets (Mk. 6:15; cf. Lk. 9:8). But Matthew cuts to the chase, as it were, and has Herod say, “This is John the Baptist; he has been raised from the dead, and for this reason these powers are at work in him” (Mt. 14:1; cf. Mk. 6:16; Lk. 9:9). Luke, having already reported the arrest of John (Lk. 3:19-20), has Herod say, “John I beheaded” in this context (Lk. 9:9), but this is a past event for him and he does not report the banquet or the beheading here. When Herod assumes that Jesus is John the Baptist raised from the dead, it leads Krister Stendahl to ask, is this “a revealing insight into religious expectations of Israel at the time” (Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, 1962, 10^th reprinting 1972, sec. 686d, p. 786, on Mt. 14:1-12), or the voice of Antipas’ conscience? Perhaps both, but the gruesome tale which follows anticipates Jesus’ own death, and this belief that John could be raised perhaps anticipates the real resurrection of Jesus to come later. This event “also serves as a reason for Jesus to withdraw from the public scene into remote and partly Gentile territory” (Ibid.).

Mark, on the other hand, tells the story in considerable detail, and Matthew reduces the story to the essential points, as is evident in the table in the separate file mentioned above, Opinions about Jesus, Death of John the Baptist. Matthew mentions Herodias, Herod’s brother Philip’s wife, early (Mt. 14:3), but Mark elaborates. “And Herodias had a grudge against him [i.e., the Baptist], and wanted to kill him but she could not, for Herod feared John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man, and he protected him” (Mk. 6:19-20). Matthew reduces that to one verse: “Though Herod wanted to put him to death, he feared the crowd, because they regarded him as a prophet” (Mt. 14:5). It is interesting to note that when Antipas “heard reports about Jesus” (Mt. 14:1), he assumed that it was “John the Baptist; he has been raised from the dead, and for this reason these powers are at work in him” (v. 2). Mark describes Herod’s birthday as “an opportunity” (Mk. 6:21), apparently for Herodias, whereas in Matthew, it is said that “Herod wanted to put him to death” (Mt. 14:5), a desire doubtlessly influenced by Herodias. In both accounts Herodias’s daughter, apparently also named Herodias (Mk. 6:22), is “prompted by her mother” to request “the head of John the Baptist here on a platter” (Mt. 14:8). According to Josephus, the daughter was named Salome (Ant. x.viii.5.4, cited by Elwyn E. Tilden and Bruce M. Metzger, NOAB, 2^nd ed., on Mt. 14:6), but Tilden and Metzger say “Contrary to Josephus . . . the daughter of Herodias may also have been named Herodias” (on Mk. 6:22). Both accounts report that the girl danced and pleased Herod (Mt. 14:6; Mk. 6:22), but only Mark adds that the guests were also pleased. Mark tells us that the daughter had to leave and ask her mother for instructions (Mk. 6:24). Both mention the oath as Herod’s reason for complying with the request (Mt. 14:9; Mk. 6:26), but Mark has earlier spelled it out in more detail (v. 23). And the gruesome result, when “the head was brought on a platter and given to the girl, who brought it to her mother” (Mt. 14:11; Mk. 6:28), sets in bold relief the stark contrast with the account of the feeding of the five thousand that follows. So one is inclined to see the juxtaposition of the two “banquets” as deliberate. Whose “dinner invitation” shall we accept?

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net