Joel 3:9-17

Judgment in the Valley of Jehoshaphat (Cp Isa 2.4; Mic 4.3)

9 Proclaim this among the nations:

Prepare war,

stir up the warriors.

Let all the soldiers draw near,

let them come up.

10 Beat your plowshares into swords,

and your pruning hooks into spears;

let the weakling say, “I am a warrior.”

11 Come quickly,

all you nations all around,

gather yourselves there.

Bring down your warriors, O LORD.

12 Let the nations rouse themselves,

and come up to the valley of Jehoshaphat;

for there I will sit to judge

all the neighboring nations.

13 Put in the sickle,

for the harvest is ripe.

Go in, tread,

for the wine press is full.

The vats overflow,

for their wickedness is great.

14 Multitudes, multitudes,

in the valley of decision!

For the day of the LORD is near

in the valley of decision.

15 The sun and the moon are darkened,

and the stars withdraw their shining.

16 The LORD roars from Zion,

and utters his voice from Jerusalem,

and the heavens and the earth shake.

But the LORD is a refuge for his people,

a stronghold for the people of Israel.

The Glorious Future of Judah

17 So you shall know that I, the LORD your God,

dwell in Zion, my holy mountain.

And Jerusalem shall be holy,

and strangers shall never again pass through it. (Joel 3:9-17, NRSV)

On November 26, 2007 (Monday in the week of the Sunday closest to November 23, Year One), comments were based on comments from November 21, 2005 (Monday in the week of the Sunday closest to November 23, Year One) and on relevant portions of comments on Joel 2:28-3:8 from November 17, 2006 (Friday in the week of the Sunday closest to November 9, Year Two), which were based on comments from November 12, 2004, two years earlier (Friday of the week of the Sunday closest to November 9, Year Two), and on relevant comments on Joel 3:9-17 from November 18, 2006 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to November 9, Year Two), which were based on comments from November 12, 2004, two years earlier (Friday of the week of the Sunday closest to November 9, Year Two). The revised comments are repeated here with some editing and supplement:

As we have noted earlier this week, in parts of Joel, the chapter numbers and/or verse numbers differ in the NRSV (and many English versions, e.g. AV/KJV, TNIV) from the numbering in the Hebrew text, which is followed by the Septuagint text and the recent Jewish translation (NJPS 1985, 1999). Today’s reading, Joel 3:7-19 NRSV, would be Joel 4:7-19 in the Hebrew text.

We also noted earlier (Monday, Nov. 10, 2008) that scholars vary considerably in their dating of the Book of Joel, who is simply known as the “son of Pethuel” (Joel 1:1). There were many times throughout the history of Israel when one would hope for the LORD to “restore the fortunes of Judah and Jerusalem” (Joel 3:1 NRSV = Heb. 4:1), but the phrase suggests some time in the exilic or post-exilic period. Gregory Mobley suggests a rather late date as implied by Joel’s interest in “the Temple at Jerusalem . . . [and] its priesthood and services, his lack of reference to the Assyrians or Babylonians, and “the heavy borrowing from other prophets” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, Introduction to Joel). However, the plague of locusts in which, according to Mobley, “the prophet discerns the transcendent significance of an ecological catastrophe” (ibid., on 1:2-2:27) could have occurred at any time in Israel’s history, early or late.

In Wednesday’s reading (Nov. 12, 2008), following descriptions of devastation represented as God’s judgment on his people (Joel 1:15-16, we came to a renewal of the call for repentance. “Yet even now, says the LORD, / return to me with all your heart, / with fasting, with weeping, and with mourning; / rend your hearts and not your clothing. / Return to the LORD, your God, / for he is gracious and merciful, / slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love, / and relents from punishing” (2:12-13; cf. calls to lament, 1:8, 13). In what follows, the LORD’s promises of reversal, restoration and blessing continue. Joel, speaking for the LORD, says, “I will remove the northern army far from you, / and drive it into a parched and desolate land” (2:20a, b). “You shall eat in plenty and be satisfied,” says the LORD (through the prophet), “and praise the name of the LORD your God, / who has dealt wondrously with you” (v. 26a, b, c). But this restoration involves a major confrontation, as noted in yesterday’s reading. “For then, in those days and at that time, when I restore the fortunes of Judah and Jerusalem, I will gather all the nations . . . to the valley of Jehoshaphat” (3:1-2a NRSV = Heb. 4:1-2a). This prose description of the LORD’s day of judgment (2:30-3:8 NRSV = Heb. 3:3-4:8, though NJPS 1985, 1999, prints 4:1-3, Heb. numbering, as poetry) concludes with an indictment of “Tyre and Sidon, and all the regions of Philistia” (3:4-8 NRSV = Heb. 4:4-8). “Israel’s coastal rivals,” says Mobley, “Tyre . . . Sidon . . . and Philistia . . . receive their ironic recompense. The LORD will sell (v. 8) into slavery those who, previously (v. 3), had sold others” (ibid.).

In today’s reading the prophet turns from prose to poetic form (for the remainder of the book, 3:9-21 NRSV = Heb. 4:9-21). The confrontation is announced. “Proclaim this among the nations: / Prepare war, / stir up the warriors. / Let all the soldiers draw near, / let them come up” (v. 9 [3:9 NRSV = 4:9 Heb.] ). Joel seems to present a reversal of the vision of the Peaceable Kingdom (Isa. 2:2-4; Micah 4:1-4). “Beat your plowshares into swords, / and your pruning hooks into spears; / let the weakling say, ‘I am a warrior’” (v. 10). “Come quickly,” says the LORD, “all you nations all around, / gather yourselves there” v. 11a, b, c). What at first appears to be announcement of a battle (war), turns into a subpoena for judgment. “Bring down your warriors, O LORD. / Let the nations rouse themselves, / and come up to the valley of Jehoshaphat; / for there I will sit to judge / all the neighboring nations” (vv. 11d, 12). What at first appears to be announcement of a battle (war), turns into a subpoena for judgment. The LORD challenges the nations to “come up to the valley of Jehoshaphat,” not so much for battle as for judgment, “for there I will sit to judge / all the neighboring nations” (v. 12). As noted yesterday, the name Jehoshaphat means, “the LORD [YHWH] judges.” We can see a glimpse here of what developed into the view of the final judgment of the “nations” (Mt. 25:32). The “sickle” and the “wine press,” instruments of “harvest” (v. 13), represent the bloody violence of war. According to R. Lansing Hicks and Walter Brueggemann, “The picture is of “the holy war between the LORD’s warriors and all the nations round about (compare Ezek. chs. 38-39)” (NOAB, 2^nd ed., on Joel 3:9-12). There are “multitudes” in “the valley of decision” (Joel 3:14), which suggests that the outcome is not yet fully determined. The “valley of decision” (v. 14) is not a call for repentance in a gospel invitation; it’s a “decision” in the sense of a “verdict” in court (cf. John A. Thompson, The Interpreter’s Bible, on Joel 3:14). The images are images of judgment, for “the sun and the moon are darkened, and the stars withdraw their shining” (v. 15; cf. the noonday darkness when Jesus was crucified, Mt. 27:45; Mk. 15:33; Lk. 23:44-45).

Although “the LORD roars from Zion, / and utters his voice from Jerusalem,” causing “the heavens and the earth [to] shake” (v. 16a, b, c), the focus here is on the enemies and oppressors of Israel . “But the LORD is a refuge for his people, / a stronghold for the people of Israel” (v. 16d, 3). The outcome is God dwelling in Zion, “I, the LORD your God, / dwell in Zion, my holy mountain” and “Jerusalem shall be holy, and strangers shall never again pass through it” (v. 17).. The book of Joel concludes with contrasts between the glorious future of Judah (vv. 17-18, 20) and judgment on her former oppressors, including Egypt and Edom (vv. 19-21).

James 2:1-13

Warning against Partiality

2:1 My brothers and sisters, do you with your acts of favoritism really believe in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ? 2 For if a person with gold rings and in fine clothes comes into your assembly, and if a poor person in dirty clothes also comes in, 3 and if you take notice of the one wearing the fine clothes and say, “Have a seat here, please,” while to the one who is poor you say, “Stand there,” or, “Sit at my feet,” 4 have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts? 5 Listen, my beloved brothers and sisters. Has not God chosen the poor in the world to be rich in faith and to be heirs of the kingdom that he has promised to those who love him? 6 But you have dishonored the poor. Is it not the rich who oppress you? Is it not they who drag you into court? 7 Is it not they who blaspheme the excellent name that was invoked over you?

8 You do well if you really fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 9 But if you show partiality, you commit sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. 10 For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. 11 For the one who said, “You shall not commit adultery,” also said, “You shall not murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery but if you murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty. 13 For judgment will be without mercy to anyone who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment. (James 2:1-13, NRSV)

On September 3, 2007 (Monday in the week of the Sunday closest to August 31, Year One), comments were repeated from November 18, 2006 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to November 9, Year Two), when they were combined with revision and supplement from November 13, 2004 (Saturday of the week of the Sunday closest to November 9, Year Two) and from August 29, 2005 (Monday in the week of the Sunday closest to August 31, Year One); the combined comments are repeated again here with editing and supplement::

James addresses rich people with warnings about their greed and unjust treatment of workers in James 5:1-6, but in the present passage, the advice is to the leaders of the Christian community not to show partiality by discrimination in the ways they welcome rich people and poor people. Both passages show an important concern for all human beings, especially the poor and under privileged. James warns against favoritism, discrimination and partiality. “My brothers and sisters, do you with your acts of favoritism really believe in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ?” (2:1 NRSV). The question form–rhetorical question–of this verse represents a change from the imperative form of earlier translations, for example, “My brethren, show no partiality as you hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory” (RSV, cf. AV/KJV; TNIV). The Greek New Testament of Westcott and Hort (1881, 1896) punctuated this verse as a question, and was followed by a reading in the margin of the English Revised Version (ERV 1881) (cf. Kurt Aland and others, edd., The Greek New Testament, 3^rd ed., 1975, apparatus for Jas. 2:1). As a rhetorical question, introduced by the negative particle mhv (mē), a negative response is clearly implied: “My brothers and sisters, with your acts of favoritism you don’t really believe in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, do you?” And the implied response is, “No, of course not!” In the context of this Epistle, this is a strong equivalent of the imperative form (RSV and others noted above).

James illustrates what he means by partiality. “For if a person with gold rings and in fine clothes comes into your assembly, and if a poor person in dirty clothes also comes in, and if you take notice of the one wearing the fine clothes and say, “Have a seat here, please,” while to the one who is poor you say, “Stand there,” or, “Sit at my feet,” have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts?” (vv. 2-4). This complex sentence concludes with another rhetorical question, this time introduced by the negative particle ouj (ou), implying the affirmative response, “Yes, of course we have made such distinctions” (cf. NRSV, AV/KJV, TNIV and others). This example, says Cain Hope Felder, is “a flagrant case of class discrimination” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on Jas. 2:2-4). The setting is the Christian “assembly” (sunagwghv, synagogē, v. 2), but the lesson applies to all of life. We should not dishonor the poor, in this way or any other. “Listen, my beloved brothers and sisters. Has not God chosen the poor (oiJ ptwcoiv, hoi ptōchoi, cf. Mt. 5:3; Lk. 6:20) in the world to be rich in faith and to be heirs of the kingdom that he has promised to those who love him? But you have dishonored the poor” (vv. 5, 6a). Sophie Laws, revised by Walter T. Wilson, agrees: “This verse may echo Jesus’ blessing on the poor; see Mt. 5:3; Lk. 6:20)” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Jas. 2:5). James points out the irony in such treatment of the poor by Christian believers with more rhetorical questions, also implying affirmative answers. “Is it not (oujc, ouch) the rich who oppress you? Is it not (kaiv, kai, lit. ‘and,’ continuing the implied form of the question) they who drag you into court?” (v. 6b). More than that, asks James, “Is it not (oujk, ouk) they who blaspheme the excellent name that was invoked over you?” (v. 7). Laws and Wilson say, “Christians were baptized in the name of Jesus (see Acts 2:38; 1 Cor 6:11), which was probably invoked over them as part of the baptismal ritual” (ibid., on v. 7).

“You do well,” says James, “if you really fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself’ ” (v. 8, citing Lev. 19:18, which both Jesus [Mt. 22:39-40; Mk. 12:31] and Paul [Rom. 13:8-10] use as a summary of part of the Decalogue). According to Felder, “the royal law [is] a designation of Lev. 19:18 that is unique to James. He attributes prominence to this precept because of its elevated status in the teachings of Jesus (Mt. 22:39; Mk. 12:31; Lk. 10:27; cf. John 13:34 and Gal. 5:14; Rom. 13:9)” (op. cit., on v. 8). Laws and Wilson present a similar explanation. “It [i.e., Lev. 19:18] may be called royal law because of the importance he [Jesus] gave it or because it was seen as the law of the kingdom he preached” (op. cit., on v. 8).

Showing “partiality” is called a sin against “the royal law”: “But if you show partiality, you commit sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors” (v. 9). According to Laws and Wilson, “James’s rejection of favoritism (v. 1) in social relations leads to a rejection of partiality (v. 9) in observing the law” (ibid., on vv. 8-13). “Concern for impartiality in the assembly originated,” says Felder, “as part of the Hebrew Bible’s social legislation (e.g., Deut. 15 and Lev. 19)” (op. cit., on v. 9). James says that the law is broken by breaking one of its stipulations. “For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it” (v. 10). He illustrates by quoting the Ten Commandments. “For the one who said, ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ also said, ‘You shall not murder.’ Now if you do not commit adultery but if you murder, you have become a transgressor of the law.” (v. 11, citing Exod. 20:13, 14; Deut 5:17, 18, in reverse order, with adultery before murder). “Jews,” say Laws and Wilson, “would similarly have insisted that their law must be kept whole and intact. James cites only the Decalogue (Ex. 20:13-14; Deut. 5:17-18, though, which suggests that he may be working here with a more focused view of the ‘whole law’ ” (op. cit., on vv. 10-11). James B. Addison criticizes “many . . . of the rabbis” for a more lenient view,

a fundamental mistake: they sought, in effect, to make grace part of the code of law, by glossing over the distinction between law and grace, by representing that in many matters a sin was not a sin, or, in small matters, that a law was not a law, and that even when it was a sin or a law a man could run a sort of credit and debit account with God, of good deeds and bad, and so need not try to do more than keep the balance on the right side. (The Epistle of James, NICNT, 1976, p. 116-117, on Jas. 2:10-11)

After citing what he sees as examples of inconsistency, for example, “The Sabbath weighs against all the precepts: if they keep it, they are reckoned as having done all” (cited from Shemoth Rabba xxv), Addison concludes, “What, then, is James’s objection to the Jewish attempts to humanize their cherished legalism? We suggest it is in his righteous insistence that to say a law is not a law, or a sin is not a sin, can lead only to evil, for example partiality” (ibid., p. 117). He adds,

God, as the Jews always knew is merciful to sinners, but not by any provision of the law. Those who seek to condone what they consider their excusable breaches of God’s Law are ipso facto closing their hearts to repentance, for which ‘God normally gives us time. No one can claim pardon for his sins; but, by his grace, if we sincerely repent, we may hopefully pray to be forgiven. (ibid.)

In his own way, James emphasizes the need for mercy. “So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty,” he says. “For judgment will be without mercy to anyone who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment” (vv. 12-13). His main point seems to be that failing to keep one of the laws makes a person a transgressor, rather than an emphasis on love of neighbor as a comprehensive summary of the law. On the analogy of the (old) Jewish law (vv. 9-11), the Christian law, the “law of liberty” (v. 12), has a place for both law and mercy, but accountability remains. We are to show mercy if we expect to receive it (v. 13).

Luke 16:10-17 (18)

10 “Whoever is faithful in a very little is faithful also in much; and whoever is dishonest in a very little is dishonest also in much. 11 If then you have not been faithful with the dishonest wealth, who will entrust to you the true riches? 12 And if you have not been faithful with what belongs to another, who will give you what is your own? 13 No slave can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.”

The Law and the Kingdom of God

14 The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all this, and they ridiculed him. 15 So he said to them, “You are those who justify yourselves in the sight of others; but God knows your hearts; for what is prized by human beings is an abomination in the sight of God.

16 “The law and the prophets were in effect until John came; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is proclaimed, and everyone tries to enter it by force. 17 But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one stroke of a letter in the law to be dropped.

18 “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and whoever marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery. (Luke 16:10-17 (18), NRSV)

On June 1, 2007 (Friday in the week of the Sunday closest to May 25, Year One), comments were repeated with revision and supplement from November 18, 2006 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to November 9, Year Two) when they were combined with revision and supplement from November 13, 2004 (Saturday of the week of the Sunday closest to November 9, Year Two), and from May 27, 2005 (Friday of the week of the Sunday closest to May 25, Year One). They are repeated here with editing and supplement:

In a series of Jesus’ sayings that follows the Parable of the Dishonest Manager (Lk. 16:1-9, yesterday’s Gospel reading), some themes recur. Some of the sayings are found only in Luke; others have parallels elsewhere in Matthew and/or Mark. See the table in a separate file, Faithfulness and the Law.

Jesus begins with what amounts to commentary on the Parable of the Dishonest Manager. “Whoever is faithful in a very little is faithful also in much; and whoever is dishonest in a very little is dishonest also in much” (Lk. 16:10). The dishonest wealth of this world is not “true riches” (v. 11), nor does it relate to God’s kind of wealth (v. 13). The “dishonest manager” is commended (Lk. 16:8) but “dishonest wealth” is used by him and by Jesus’ disciples (v. 9), who are to be “faithful with the dishonest wealth” if they are to be entrusted “with the true riches” (v. 11). A distinction cited from Eric Franklin yesterday is still relevant:

The servant is ‘dishonest’ in our understanding of the term. All mammon (NRSV wealth), however, is called ‘dishonest’ in the sense that it is material possessions understood as the things in which one puts one’s trust and that therefore encourage an acquisitive attitude and a self-reliance; it separates one from God (hence ‘unrighteous’ is probably a better term). (Eric Franklin, The Oxford Bible Commentary, 2001, p. 948, on Lk. 16:1-13)

Franklin noted the use of the same word for “dishonest” (ajdikiva, adikia) in verses 8 and 9. The expression varies in verse 11, but the thought is the same: Verse 11 uses the adjective a[dikoV (adikos), “If then you have not been faithful with the dishonest wealth ( ejn tw:/ ajdivkw/ mamwna:/, en tō adikō mamōna). We are faced with a choice: “No slave can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth” (v. 13; cf. Mt. 6:24, which in the Greek does not include “a slave,” oijkevthV, oiketēs [except in ms. L and a few others], but is otherwise the same as Luke’s version), where “wealth” (mamwna:V, mamōnas) carries the sense given by Franklin, “material possessions understood as the things in which one puts one’s trust and that therefore encourage an acquisitive attitude and a self-reliance [which] separates one from God.” Franklin notes that Luke “has the parable [of the Dishonest Manager] addressed to the disciples” which “would include those whom Jesus’ table-sharing was receiving into the Kingdom, the tax-collectors and sinners” (ibid.). He adds:

Faithfulness with ‘unrighteous mammon’ means using it in the service of the poor (v. 11). They must free themselves from its shackles. They cannot be slaves to God and to mammon. (ibid.)

The Pharisees, “who were lovers of money,” respond with ridicule (v. 14), and in turn are rebuked by Jesus. “You are those who justify yourselves in the sight of others; but God knows your hearts; for what is prized by human beings is an abomination in the sight of God” (v. 15). If we could know about ourselves what God knows, we would be more inclined to value what he values. If we believe, as we do, that he has our best interests at heart, we should want to know, value and do what he wants us to know, value and do. The prayer, “Thy will be done!” leads to what is in our own best interest, in the end. The Pharisees, “who were lovers of money,” respond with ridicule (v. 14), and in turn are rebuked by Jesus (v. 15). Franklin says they “obviously do not expect [the tax-collectors] to give up attitudes of a lifetime” (ibid., p. 948 on vv. 16-31), but Jesus sees the Pharisees as “those who justify yourselves in the sight of others; but God knows your hearts” (v. 15).

Luke’s statement about the law and the prophets has a parallel in the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew. In Luke, Jesus says, “The law and the prophets were in effect until John came; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is proclaimed, and everyone tries to enter it by force (biavzetai, biazetai). But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one stroke of a letter in the law to be dropped” (vv. 16-17). In Matthew, in the context of Jesus’ description of John the Baptist’s ministry, Jesus says something rather different: “From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence (biavzetai, biazetai), and the violent (biastaiv, biastai) take it by force. For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John came” (Mt. 11:12-13), and an identification of John with Elijah follows, “and if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah who is to come” (v. 14). Krister Stendahl comments on Matthew’s version:

Mt. pictures the transitional situation–‘from the days of John the Baptist until now’–with a phrase that remains a veritable crux of interpretation: 12b reads either ‘the Kingdom of Heaven suffers violence (passive) and men of violence grab it’ or ‘the Kingdom of Heaven manifests itself violently (or: powerfully; reflexive) and keen and daring men take hold of it’. The latter meaning fits better into Mt.’s context, but the former–taken as a reference to Zealots and others who entertain military dreams of Israel’s deliverance–is more natural from a linguistic point of view . . .  In whatever way the intermediate situation be described, the prophetic ministry of John was the last phase and predicted climax before the coming of the Kingdom. (Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, 1962, reprinted 1972, sec. 684e, p. 784, on Mt. 11:12-13)

In Luke, the transition from the time of “the law and the prophets,” which “were in effect until John came,” to the time of the Kingdom of God (v. 17) “does not mean an end of the righteous requirements of the law,” for in his saying about divorce” (v. 18), according to Franklin, Jesus “actually intensifies the law’s demands”:

The tax-collectors must adopt a new attitude to the things of this world. Jesus was also criticized for receiving the sinners too freely. Again, however, that does not mean an end of the righteous requirements of the law. At the heart of its commandments about sexual morality was its high standard concerning marriage and divorce. Jesus said little about sexual attitudes, but he did talk about marriage. Luke therefore includes this saying where he actually intensifies the law’s demands. His free acceptance of sinners did not mean an indifferent acquiescence in their standards. Grace exposed and recreated those who responded to its gentle outreach. (op. cit., p. 949, on vv. 14-31)

G. W. H. Lampe says, “The Law itself, however, is not repudiated by the preaching of the kingdom. It is not part of the Pharisaic ‘abomination’, but is fulfilled and so stands in its entirety. To repudiate it would be for Jesus to break the covenant or marriage-bond between God and Israel” (Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, 1962, reprinted 1972, sec. 730k, p. 837, on Lk. 16:16-18). This understanding of the “marriage-bond between God and Israel” leads to the final statement about divorce (Lk. 16:18; cf. Mk. 10:11-12; Mt. 19:9), which does not include Matthew’s exception clause, “except for unchastity” (Mt. 19:9; cf. Mt. 5:32).

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net