Isaiah 3:8-15 (Episcopal); 3:1-4:1 (Presbyterian, Lutheran)

On December 8, 2006 (Friday in the week of the First Sunday of Advent, Year One), comments were repeated with revision and supplement from December 3, 2004 (Friday in the week of the First Sunday of Advent, Year One); the revised comments are repeated here:

Wednesday’s reading began with a glorious picture of peace with the LORD governing the nations from Jerusalem (Isa. 2:2-4), but soon turned to indictment of Israel and judgment (vv. 6-22), though tempered by the call to repentance and obedience (v. 5). This indictment carried over into Thursday’s reading. Another long negative reading remains for today (3:1-4:1) before we come to another picture of Jerusalem renewed (4:2-6). Benjamin D. Sommer calls today’s reading a picture of “wealth and woe” (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, on Isa. 3:1-4:1) in two parts, “Unworthy leaders and a society in ruins” (on 3:1-15), and “The haughtiness of wealthy women, and their downfall” (on 3:16-4:1).

In the opening stanza, judgment turns ironic. The LORD is removing the essentials, “support and staff–all support of bread, / and all support of water” (Isa. 3:1c, d, e). If this is literal, it could refer to Jerusalem under siege by Sennacherib’s army (Isa. 36-37; 2 Kgs. 18:13-19:37). But perhaps it pictures the removal of all the leaders, “warrior and soldier, / judge and prophet, / diviner and elder, / captain of fifty / and dignitary; / counselor and skillful magician / and expert enchanter” (Isa. 3:2-3). The LORD “will make boys their princes, / and babes shall rule over them” (v. 4). “The people will be oppressed,” says the LORD, “everyone by another / and everyone by a neighbor; / the youth will be insolent to the elder, / and the base to the honorable” (v. 5). The failure of good leadership becomes a vacuum filled by a caricature of itself, the rule of boys and babes.

The picture of social disorder continues. “Someone will even seize a relative, / a member of the clan, saying, / ‘You have a cloak; / you shall be our leader, / and this heap of ruins / shall be under your rule.” / But the other will cry out on that day, saying, / I will not be a healer; / in my house there is neither bread nor cloak; / you shall not make me / leader of the people” (vv. 6-7). Joseph A. Blenkinsopp calls this “a brief cameo (cf. Am. 3:12; 6:9-10) providing a narrative illustration of social disorder (cf. Mic. 7:5-6). People will be so concerned with their own survival that no one will want to take charge” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on Isa. 3:6-7). A reason is given for why “Jerusalem has stumbled / and Judah has fallen” (v. 8a, b). It is “because their speech and their deeds are against the LORD, / defying his glorious presence” (v. 8c, d).

Another stanza declares that the guilt of Judah’s leaders is evident. “The look on their faces bears witness against them; / they proclaim their sin like Sodom, / they do not hide it” (v. 9a, b, c). Woes are pronounced against them, “for they have brought evil on themselves” (v. 9d, e). Although “the innocent” are “fortunate,” and “shall eat the fruit of their labors” (v. 10), the “guilty” are “unfortunate . . . for what their hands have done shall be done to them” (v. 11). Excoriating the leaders, the Lord says through the prophet, “My people--children are their oppressors, / and women rule over them. / O my people, your leaders mislead you, / and confuse the course of your paths” (v. 12).

In the following stanza, “the LORD rises to argue his case,” that is, to present a formal indictment, as “he stands to judge the peoples” (v. 13). In this “indictment of the state leadership,” says Blenkinsopp, “the language is forensic, presupposing location in a court of law; hence the LORD rises to deliver the indictment (cf. Mic. 6:1-5; Ps. 50:82)” (ibid., on vv. 13-15). “The LORD enters into judgment / with the elders and princes of his people; / it is you,” he says, “who have devoured the vineyard; / the spoil of the poor is in your houses” (v. 14). The prophet thus anticipates the Daily Office Reading for next Sunday (Isa. 5:1-7, the Song of the Unfruitful Vineyard). “What do you mean,” asks the LORD, “by crushing my people, / by grinding the face of the poor?” (3:15a, b). According to Blenkinsopp, “Exploitation of the poor (by enclosure and confiscation of lands, indentured service, etc.) is a principal target of eighth-century BCE prophetic polemic (Am. 2:6-8; 3:9-11; 6:4-7; 8:4-6; Mic. 2:1-3; 3:1-4, 9-12)” (ibid., on vv. 13-15).

One result of such oppressive policies is a significant imbalance between the wealthy and the poor. The prophet turns to a related consequence, “the haughtiness of wealthy women” (a part of Sommer’s title for 3:16-4:1, above). The LORD, speaking through the prophet calls “the daughters of Zion . . . haughty,” for they “walk with outstretched necks, / glancing wantonly with their eyes, / mincing along as the go, / tinkling with their feet” (v. 16). The prophet doesn’t linger on the description of the women, but proceeds to description of their fate, for “the Lord will afflict with scabs / the heads of the daughters of Zion, / and the LORD will lay bare their secret parts” (v. 17). Sommer comments, “The vertical imagery is significant: Women who are metaphorically too high (i.e., too wealthy and too eager to display their wealth) will be brought low” (op. cit., on 3:16-4:1). In the forthcoming “day” of the Lord, he “will take away the finery of the anklets, the headbands, and the crescents; the pendants, the bracelets, and the scarfs [the list goes in!]” (vv. 18-19, cf. vv. 20-23). “The two themes of 3:1-23–corrupt and unworthy male leaders and immoral women–combine in a description of a single punishment suitable to both. The men are killed, leaving the women bereaved and impoverished” (ibid., on 3:25-4:1). In a situation when Jerusalem is under fierce attack, and the “men . . . fall by the sword” (3:25), the ladies will have not perfume, but “a stench; / and instead of a sash, a rope” (v. 24a, b). They will not have well-set hair, rich robes, or beauty, but baldness, a binding of sackcloth and shame (v. 24c, d, e). The prophet describes a situation in which most of the men have been killed in battle, and “Seven women shall take hold of one man in that day, saying ‘We will eat our own bread and wear our own clothes; /just let us be called by your name; / take away our disgrace’” (4:1). According to Blenkinsopp, “The seven women, probably acting in concert rather than in competition with each other, are willing to forgo the support mandated by law (Ex. 28:10) to avoid the stigma of childlessness (cf. Gen. 30:23, Rachel; 1 Sam 1:4-8, Hannah)” (op. cit., on 4:1).

1 Thessalonians 4:1-12

A Life Pleasing to God

4:1 Finally, brothers and sisters, we ask and urge you in the Lord Jesus that, as you learned from us how you ought to live and to please God (as, in fact, you are doing), you should do so more and more. 2 For you know what instructions we gave you through the Lord Jesus. 3 For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from fornication; 4 that each one of you know how to control your own body in holiness and honor, 5 not with lustful passion, like the Gentiles who do not know God; 6 that no one wrong or exploit a brother or sister in this matter, because the Lord is an avenger in all these things, just as we have already told you beforehand and solemnly warned you. 7 For God did not call us to impurity but in holiness. 8 Therefore whoever rejects this rejects not human authority but God, who also gives his Holy Spirit to you.

9 Now concerning love of the brothers and sisters, you do not need to have anyone write to you, for you yourselves have been taught by God to love one another; 10 and indeed you do love all the brothers and sisters throughout Macedonia. But we urge you, beloved, to do so more and more, 11 to aspire to live quietly, to mind your own affairs, and to work with your hands, as we directed you, 12 so that you may behave properly toward outsiders and be dependent on no one. (1 Thessalonians 4:1-12, NRSV)

On April 19, 2008 (Saturday in the week of the Fourth Sunday of Easter, Year Two), comments were repeated from December 8, 2006 (Friday in the week of the First Sunday of Advent, Year One), when they were combined with revision and supplement from December 3, 2004 (Friday of the week of the First Sunday of Advent, Year One), and from May 13, 2006 (Saturday of the week of the Fourth Sunday of Easter, Year Two). The combined comments are repeated again here:

Much of 1 Thessalonians has reviewed Paul’s relations with the believers in Thessalonica, but Paul begins in chapter 4 to deal with certain issues. He calls upon the believers there to continue to “live” (literally ‘walk,’ peripatei:n, peripatein) “as you learned from us how you ought to live and to please God” (1 Thess. 4:1), according to his instructions (v. 2). It seems that Paul presented Christian halakah to his churches. (Halakah, from j`l1h!, hālak, ‘walk,’ is a term for Rabbinical interpretation of biblical commands.) Paul focuses here on sexual propriety. He issues a call to holy living. "For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from fornication; that each one of you know how to control your own body in holiness and honor, not with lustful passion, like the Gentiles who do not know God" (1 Thess. 4:3-5). No one should “wrong or exploit a brother or sister in this matter, because the Lord is an avenger in all these things,” says Paul, “just as we have already told you beforehand and solemnly warned you” (v. 6). The Thessalonian believers are not called “to impurity but in holiness” (v. 7). This command, he says, is based not merely on human authority, but the authority “of God, who also gives his Holy Spirit to you” (v. 8). Sexual immorality is contrary to Christian life in the Spirit.

Paul turns to the subject of love for one another within the Christian community. “Now concerning love of the brothers and sisters,” he says, “you do not need to have anyone write to you, for you yourselves have been taught by God to love one another; and indeed you do love all the brothers and sisters throughout Macedonia” (vv. 9-10a). But he urges them “to do so more and more” (v. 10). And he urges them “to aspire to live quietly, to mind your own affairs, and to work with our hands . . . so that you may behave properly toward outsiders and be dependent on no one” (vv. 11-12). This is good advice in any setting, but perhaps especially so in the face of opposition such as Paul and others had faced at Thessalonica. Later he will urge them to “admonish the idlers (ajtavktouV, ataktous)” (5:14; cf. 2 Thess. 3:11). Although Abraham Smith says the term should be translated “disorderly ones” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on 1 Thess. 5:14), he is perhaps unduly influenced by the etymology. According to Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich-Danker (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature [BADG], 2^nd ed., 1979, s.v. a[taktoV, ataktos), “the sense idle, lazy is to be preferred here.”

Luke 20:41-21:4

The Question about David’s Son (Mt 22.41-46; Mk 12.35-37)

41 Then he said to them, “How can they say that the Messiah is David’s son? 42 For David himself says in the book of Psalms,

‘The Lord said to my Lord,

“Sit at my right hand,

43 until I make your enemies your footstool.” ‘

44 David thus calls him Lord; so how can he be his son?”

Jesus Denounces the Scribes (Mt 23.1-7; Mk 12.38-40)

45 In the hearing of all the people he said to the disciples, 46 “Beware of the scribes, who like to walk around in long robes, and love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces, and to have the best seats in the synagogues and places of honor at banquets. 47 They devour widows’ houses and for the sake of appearance say long prayers. They will receive the greater condemnation.”

The Widow’s Offering (Mk 12.41-44)

21:1 He looked up and saw rich people putting their gifts into the treasury; 2 he also saw a poor widow put in two small copper coins. 3 He said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all of them; 4 for all of them have contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty has put in all she had to live on.” (Luke 20:41-21:4, NRSV)

On June 21, 2007 (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 15, Year One), comments were repeated from December 8, 2006 (Friday of the week of the First Sunday of Advent, Year One), when they were combined with revision and supplement from December 3, 2004 (Friday of the week of the First Sunday of Advent, Year One), and from June 16, 2005 (Thursday of the week of the Sunday closest to June 15, Year One). For texts parallel to today’s reading from Luke, see the separate file, David’s Lord - Woes to Scribes and Pharisees - Widow’s Mite. For the place of these accounts by Luke, see the following table. For recent comments on Mark’s version of the three accounts in today’s reading, see comments in the Archive for August 24, 2007. For comments on Matthew’s version of the question about David’s Son or David’s Lord, see comments in the Archive for April 30, 2008.

After fielding a series of questions from opponents, Jesus addresses them with a question about whether the Messiah is “David’s son.” Note the sequence in the table above. This is the first of three short accounts: the Question about David’s Son (Lk. 20:41-44; cf. Mk. 12:35-37a; and the fuller version, Mt. 22:41-46), a Denouncing of the Scribes (Lk. 20:45-47; Mk. 12:37-40), and Jesus’ comment on the Widow’s Offering (Lk. 21:1-4; Mk. 12:41-44). In the first instance, Jesus refers to an Old Testament text that was considered Messianic, at least by the Christians. Psalm 110:1 (LXX 109:1) is quoted sixteen times in the New Testament, five of which are in the Epistle to the Hebrews (see Robert G. Bratcher, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament, 3^rd rev. ed., 1987, p. 85). The superscription attributes the Psalm to David, which would not have been questioned by Jesus or his opponents. Jesus asks how the Messiah, “my Lord” can be David’s son, since David, in authoring the Psalm, calls him “Lord.” In Mark and Luke, the question stands unanswered; Matthew, making things clear, says “And no one was able to answer him a word” (Mt. 22:46). A fully developed New Testament christology (the doctrine of Jesus as the Messiah/Christ) would affirm that Jesus is David’s son (Rom. 1:3; cf. Gal. 4:4; Mt. 1:2-17). But Jesus is turning the scribes’ exegetical methods against them with a question that produces another “either/or” dilemma.

Jesus quotes Psalm 110:1, where the first “LORD” (hv!hy4, YHWH, pronounced yn!dox3,, ’^adōnāy, plural) refers to God, and the second (“my lord,” yn9dox3, ’ ^adōnî, singular) is understood as a reference to the Messiah, or so Jesus could assume for his hearers. In effect, then, the question is, How can the Messiah be David’s son since David himself spoke by divine inspiration and called the Messiah “my lord”? According to Richard A. Horsley, “This passage constitutes a rejection of any triumphant restoration of the Davidic state (which Bartimaeus and the shouts of the crowd may have suggested . . .)” (Richard A. Horsley, NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on Mk. 12:35-37). Jesus certainly did not intend to incite a political revolution.

In the second account, Jesus denounces the scribes for ostentatious behavior (Lk. 20:45-46; cf. Mk. 12:37b-39; Mt. 23:1, 5b, 6), and oppression of widows, “They devour widows’ houses” (Lk. 20:47; cf. Mk. 12:40; Mt. 23:[14–not in the older mss.] ). Bruce M. Metzger explains why Mt. 13:14 should be considered a later addition:

That ver. 14 is an interpolation derived from the parallel in Mk. 12:40 or Lk. 20:47 is clear (a) from its absence in the earliest and best authorities of the Alexandrian, the Western, and the Caesarean types of text, and (b) from the fact that the witnesses which include the passage have it in different places, either after ver. 13 (so the Textus Receptus) or before ver. 13. (A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 1971, on Mt. 23:13)

In Mark’s account, one scribe is portrayed to whom Jesus said, “You are not far from the kingdom of God” (Mk. 12:34). But often Mark refers to Jesus’ opponents as “the scribes and the Pharisees.” Neither term should be taken as inclusive. But the scribes are the ones who should have understood. We note that while the parallel material from Matthew is within the long series of woes against the scribes and Pharisees (Mt. 23:1-36), most of Luke’s material parallel to that passage is in chapter 11 (and probably based on material in the so-called sayings source “Q”), What is presented here (Lk.20:45-47 appears to be based on Mark’s version, to which it is closer than to Matthew’s version.

In contrast to the rebuke for the oppression of widows (Lk. 20:47a), it is a widow who earns Jesus’ praise because her gift of “two small copper coins” (leptav, lepta, each worth normally about one eighth of a cent, Lk. 21:2) was “all she had to live on” (v. 4b). She puts to shame those who “contributed out of their abundance” (v. 4a), probably including the scribes who “for the sake of appearance say long prayers” (20:47b). Richard A. Horsley, commenting on Mark’s version, characterizes this passage, which “illustrates how the scribes devour widow’s houses: by inducing them to give their meager resources to the Temple. For this they will receive the greater condemnation, [Mk. 12:] 40, confirmed by the immediately ensuing prophecy of the destruction of the Temple which they serve” (op. cit., on Mk:12:41-43).

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net