Isaiah 63:1-5

63:1 “Who is this that comes from Edom,

from Bozrah in garments stained crimson?

Who is this so splendidly robed,

marching in his great might?”

“It is I, announcing vindication,

mighty to save.”

2 “Why are your robes red,

and your garments like theirs who tread the wine press?”

3 “I have trodden the wine press alone,

and from the peoples no one was with me;

I trod them in my anger

and trampled them in my wrath;

their juice spattered on my garments,

and stained all my robes.

4 For the day of vengeance was in my heart,

and the year for my redeeming work had come.

5 I looked, but there was no helper;

I stared, but there was no one to sustain me;

so my own arm brought me victory,

and my wrath sustained me.” (Isaiah 63:1-5, NRSV)

The following comments are repeated here from February 12, 2007 (Monday in the week of the Sixth Sunday after the Epiphany, Year One):

One could get the impression that the opening question here continues an ongoing dialogue. The speaker asks, “Who is this that comes from Edom, / from Bozrah in garments stained crimson? / Who is this so splendidly robed, / marching in his great might?” (Isa. 63:1a, b, c, d). Earlier, the speaker who says, “The spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me” (61:1a), is clearly not God. We have considered the possibility that the speaker there is the prophet, or the Messiah. In 61:8, the LORD speaks, “For I the LORD love justice” (61:8a), but the prophet speaks again, “I will rejoice in the LORD (61:10a, or is it the Messiah?). The voice of the prophet continues in 62:1, “For Zion’s sake I will not keep silent” (62:1a), for he refers to the LORD in the third person (v. 3). The LORD is quoted (vv. 8-9, 11d, e, f).

As we return to today’s reading, a speaker responds to the question of 63:1. “It is I, announcing vindication, / mighty to save” (63:1e, f). Another question follows. ““Why are your robes red, / and your garments like theirs who tread the wine press? (v. 2). The answer describes the process of treading grapes in a wine press to extract the wine. “I have trodden the wine press alone, / and from the peoples no one was with me” (v. 3a). The harvesting process is a biblical image of judgment (vv. 3, 4, 6; cf. Joel 3:13; Rev. 14:19-20), and the wine here represents blood. But in what context? The question remains. Who is this? Benjamin D. Sommer identifies him as “the divine warrior” (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, on Isa. 63:1-3); compare J. J. M. Roberts, who sees here “the triumphant return of the Divine Warrior” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Isa. 63:1-6), adding that the figure coming from Edom identifies himself as the mighty Savior (see Ps. 24:8-10). John N. Oswalt uses the term, “divine warrior” (Isaiah, The NIV Application Commentary, 2003, on Isa. 63:1-6), but he probably thinks of a close connection between the LORD and the Messiah. This section, Isaiah 63:1-6 corresponds as C’ in the chiastic structure cited from Oswalt earlier (see comments for Thursday, February 8, 2007) to the “Divine warrior” section C (Isa. 59:15b-21). In the earlier section, Oswalt comments:

God will come and do for his people what neither they nor anyone else can do for them. That is, the same ‘arm’ (59:16) that made it possible for them to be restored to fellowship with God (53:1), the Servant, will now defeat the sin that reigns in them and will make it possible for them to be, in truth, the servants of the Lord (as promised in 2:1-5 and elsewhere throughout the book). Whereas in 52:13-53:12 the Servant was submissive, undergoing the punishment the erring sheep had brought on themselves, now the arm of the Lord is revealed as a conquering warrior (59:17). (ibid., p. 636, on Isa. 59:15b-21)

We note further references to “the arm of the LORD” (62:8; 63:5, 12). In the current context, Oswalt says of the divine warrior that

God does not say in 63:1-66:24 that he will destroy their physical enemies in spite of their sinfulness. Rather, he will destroy the sinners among his people and will vindicate those among his people who allow him to make them righteous, using these latter people to call the nations to worship the righteous God. They are his true servants (65:13-16; cf. 54:17). (ibid., p. 661, on Isa. 63:1-6)

John D. W. Watts holds the view–considered problematic by others–that the warrior here is not the “divine warrior,” but rather a Persian general and satrap of Beyond the River (the name of the province of the Persian empire that included Judea) who “won significant victories in Egypt and major naval engagements off the island of Cyprus” (Isaiah 34-66, The Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 25, 1987, on Isa. 62:8-63:6). According to Watts, “The horrible scene portrays a victory won without Jewish participation which nonetheless secured safety and order for her prosperity and restoration. Without Person troops and administration, the victory over vandals and intruders would have had to be bought with Jewish blood as it had been from the days of Deborah through those of Josiah” (ibid., p. 318). Watts puts this in the time of Artaxerxes (457-438 B.C., ibid., p. 306). For a critique of Watts’ historical connections in Isaiah, including his “problematic” association of “major sections of Isaiah with the preexilic kings and postexilic governors of Judah as well as with the emperors of Babylon and Persia,” see the review by Carroll Stuhlmueller, Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 53 (1991), 126-127). Another review of Watts, even more critical, is by Elmer Smick, who says, “despite the fact that Cyrus is the only Persian king clearly mentioned in the entire book Watts, with no reluctance, finds Darius I referred to 87 times and Artaxerxes I 100 times (p. xxv)” (Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 37 [1994], p. 143). “Watts considers it almost undebatable,” says Smick, “that Zerubbabel is the suffering servant mentioned in Isaiah 53,” and he adds, “The sin condemned in Isaiah 59 is purported to be the rebellion of the returned remnant against Persia. When the text speaks of the future (59:18-20) Watts can see only Artaxerxes as the promised redeemer” (ibid.).

Oswalt, on the other hand, as noted above sees the figure here as the divine warrior and the arm of the LORD, and relates him to the Servant of earlier servant songs.

Thus, the blood that stains the garments of the Victor (63:1, 3) is the blood of sinners from all nations, including his own nation, who have defied him. This defiant character of humanity is symbolized by the nation of Edom (63:1; cf. 34:5-15; also Obad.). Why could no one else do this (Isa. 63:3,5). Because he alone did not have to die for his own sins (53:4-10). He alone is the righteous Judge, who is without sin. But this is not destruction for its own sake. Rather, it is for the purpose of making ‘redemption’ and ‘salvation’ (64:4-5) available. Until sin and those who propagate it are defeated, there is no genuine salvation available. The idea that redemption and continued sin can coexist is not biblical; it is certainly not Isaianic. (op. cit., on Isa. 63:1-6)

The divine warrior must act alone because “there was no helper . . . there was no one to sustain me” (v. 5:a, b). After limited review of issues related to this passage, I would favor Oswalt’s approach, and reject the view of John D. W. Watts.

Revelation 2:18-29

18 "And to the angel of the church in Thyatira write: These are the words of the Son of God, who has eyes like a flame of fire, and whose feet are like burnished bronze:

19 "I know your works–your love, faith, service, and patient endurance. I know that your last works are greater than the first. 20 But I have this against you: you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet and is teaching and beguiling my servants to practice fornication and to eat food sacrificed to idols. 21 I gave her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her fornication. 22 Beware, I am throwing her on a bed, and those who commit adultery with her I am throwing into great distress, unless they repent of her doings; 23 and I will strike her children dead. And all the churches will know that I am the one who searches minds and hearts, and I will give to each of you as your works deserve. 24 But to the rest of you in Thyatira, who do not hold this teaching, who have not learned what some call 'the deep things of Satan,' to you I say, I do not lay on you any other burden; 25 only hold fast to what you have until I come. 26 To everyone who conquers and continues to do my works to the end,

I will give authority over the nations;

27 to rule them with an iron rod,

as when clay pots are shattered–

28 even as I also received authority from my Father. To the one who conquers I will also give the morning star. 29 Let anyone who has an ear listen to what the Spirit is saying to the churches. (Revelation 2:18-29, NRSV)

On December 14, 2007 (Friday in the week of the Second Sunday of Advent, Year Two), comments were repeated from December 9, 2005 (Friday in the week of the Second Sunday of Advent, Year Two); the comments are repeated again here with editing and supplement:

As the letter to Thyatira is introduced, the Lord refers to the imagery of chapter 1: “And to the angel of the church in Thyatira write: These are the words of the Son of God, who has eyes like a flame of fire and whose feet are like burnished bronze” (Rev. 2:18; cf. 1:14, 15). Jean-Pierre Ruiz refers also to Daniel 10:6 (NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on Rev. 2:18). The church is commended: “I know your works–your love, faith, service, and patient endurance. I know that your last works are greater than the first” (v 19). But they are also rebuked for tolerating the teaching of a woman called “Jezebel”: “But I have this against you: you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet and is teaching and beguiling my servants to practice fornication and to eat food sacrificed to idols” (v. 20). According to Ruiz, this is “John’s characterization of a female opponent at Thyatira, here identified contemptuously with the Phoenician wife of King Ahab, the queen who worshiped Baal and who opposed the prophet Elijah (1 Kings 16:31; 19:1-2)” (op. cit., on v. 20). According to David E. Aune, “her teachings were, in his view, leading Christians astray. Since the weapons of ancient slander routinely included charges of immorality, it is difficult to know what the real situation was” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Rev. 2:20).

“I gave her time to repent,” says the Lord, “but she refuses to repent of her fornication” (v. 21). “Beware,” says the Lord,, “I am throwing her on a bed” (v. 22a). Ruiz calls this “punishment with serious sickness . . . threatened for the Thyatiran Jezebel” (op. cit., on v. 22). The punishment also includes her followers: “and those who commit adultery with her I am throwing into great distress, unless they repent of her doings; and I will strike her children dead (vv. 22b, 23a). “Those who commit adultery with her,” says Ruiz, “are those who are complicit in her idolatry. In the Hebrew Bible idolatry is often called adultery, with marital infidelity used as a metaphor for worship of other gods than the LORD (Deut. 31:16; Judg. 2:17; 1 Chr. 5:25)” (ibid.). “Her children,” he adds, are “those who follow her teachings” (ibid., on v. 23; cf. Aune, op. cit., on v. 23).

The Lord defines his role in judgment, even “in the house of God” (cf. 1 Pet. 4:17): “And all the churches will know,” he says, “that I am the one who searches minds and hearts, and I will give to each of you as your works deserve” (Rev. 2:23b). But he gives encouragement to those who have not followed the teachings of this “Jezebel.” “But to the rest of you in Thyatira, who do not hold this teaching, who have not learned what some call 'the deep things of Satan,' to you I say, I do not lay on you any other burden; only hold fast to what you have until I come” (vv. 24-25). “Deep things of Satan,” says Ruiz, is “a sarcastic reference to heretical teachings (contrast 1 Cor. 2:10)” (op. cit., on v. 24). Without this reference, Aune nevertheless echoes 1 Corinthians 2:10: “The deep things of Satan,” he says, is “perhaps a sarcastic revision of the prophetess’s motto, which probably was ‘the deep things of God’ ” (op. cit., on v. 24).

Here again, the Lord gives promises to those who are faithful: “To everyone who conquers and continues to do my works to the end,

I will give authority over the nations;

to rule them with an iron rod,

As when clay pots are shattered–

even as I also received authority from my Father” (vv. 26-28a, citing Ps. 2:8, 9). To this we may compare a Jewish first century B.C. expectation about “their king,” whom the Lord will “raise up for them . . . the son of David, to rule over your servant Israel / in the time known to you, O God” (Psalms of Solomon, 17:21). The prayer is that he will “drive out / the sinners from the inheritance; / to smash the arrogance of sinners / like a potter’s jar; / To shatter all their substance with an iron rod; / to destroy the unlawful nations with the word of his mouth” (vv. 23-24). The Lord explains, “even as I also received authority from my Father. To the one who conquers I will also give the morning star” (v. 28). According to Aune, “Morning star (the bright planet Venus) [is] an epithet of Christ (22:16) and a messianic symbol (Num. 24:17; Mt. 2:2, 10)” (op. cit., on v. 28).

This letter to the fourth church is the first of four (the last four) to close with the admonition, “Let anyone who has an ear listen to what the Spirit is saying to the churches” (v. 29; cf. 3:6, 13, 22; cf. also 13:9; Mt. 11:15; 13:9, 43). According to Ruiz, the words “is saying” refer to what the Spirit is saying “in this revelation” (op. cit., on v. 29).

John 5:1-15

5:1 After this there was a festival of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.

2 Now in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate there is a pool, called in Hebrew Beth-zatha, which has five porticoes. 3 In these lay many invalids-blind, lame, and paralyzed. 5 One man was there who had been ill for thirty-eight years. 6 When Jesus saw him lying there and knew that he had been there a long time, he said to him, “Do you want to be made well?” 7 The sick man answered him, “Sir, I have no one to put me into the pool when the water is stirred up; and while I am making my way, someone else steps down ahead of me.” 8 Jesus said to him, “Stand up, take your mat and walk.” 9 At once the man was made well, and he took up his mat and began to walk.

Now that day was a sabbath. 10 So the Jews said to the man who had been cured, “It is the sabbath; it is not lawful for you to carry your mat.” 11 But he answered them, “The man who made me well said to me, ‘Take up your mat and walk.’ “ 12 They asked him, “Who is the man who said to you, ‘Take it up and walk’?” 13 Now the man who had been healed did not know who it was, for Jesus had disappeared in the crowd that was there. 14 Later Jesus found him in the temple and said to him, “See, you have been made well! Do not sin any more, so that nothing worse happens to you.” 15 The man went away and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had made him well. (John 5:1-15, NRSV).

On August 16, 2008 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to August 10, Year Two), comments on John 5:1-18 were repeated from January 29, 2008 (Tuesday in the week of the Third Sunday after the Epiphany, Year Two), when they were repeated from December 31, 2007 (Monday in the week of the First Sunday after Christmas, ref. for Dec. 31, Year Two), when they were repeated from March 7, 2007 (Wednesday in the week of the Second Sunday of Lent, Year One), comments then combined with some further revision and supplement from January 24, 2006 (Tuesday in the week of the Third Sunday after the Epiphany, Year Two). These were based on earlier comments from August 19, 2006 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to August 10, Year Two), when comments were repeated from February 23, 2005 (Wednesday in the week of the Second Sunday of Lent, Year One). The combined comments are repeated again here:

Jesus goes up to Jerusalem for “a festival of the Jews” (Jn. 5:1). The festival is not specified, but various festivals have been suggested, for example, Tabernacles, Passover or Pentecost (cf. Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel according to John I-XII, Anchor Bible, vol. 29, 1966, on Jn. 5:1). But the focus of the narrative is on Jesus’ healing of the lame man (vv. 3-9), and the challenge of the Jews, first to the healed man, “It is the sabbath; it is not lawful for you to carry your mat” (v. 10), and then to Jesus, “because he was doing such things on the sabbath” (v. 16, cf. v. 18). Many have had special interest in the pool. “Excavations near the later Church of St. Anne have uncovered evidence of a second century CE healing sanctuary and pool with five porticoes” (Obery M. Hendricks, NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on Jn. 5:1-18). Brown notes that “From patristic days (Tertullian, Chrysostom) a baptismal motif has been suggested for this story: this man whom the waters of Judaism could not heal has been cured by Christ.” But Brown notes that “Not only do the waters not heal, but also vs. 4 was probably not part of the text of John” (op. cit., p. 211, on 5:1-15) (It is missing in most of the earlier manuscripts.) The reference to the angel who stirred up the water (Jn. 5:4 KJV) is relegated to a footnote in recent translations because it is not included in most of the earliest manuscripts, and it is included but marked as questionable in a few manuscripts (cf. NRSV text note d on vv. 3-[4]). Brown explains verse 4 as an “ancient gloss” that “may well reflect with accuracy a popular tradition about the pool. The bubbling of the water (vs. 7), caused perhaps by an intermittent spring, was thought to have healing power; and this may well have been attributed in the popular imagination to supernatural powers” (on v. [4]).

But the focus of the narrative is on Jesus’ healing of the lame man (vv. 3-9), and the challenge of the Jews, first to the healed man, “It is the sabbath; it is not lawful for you to carry your mat” (v. 10), and then to Jesus, “because he was doing such things on the sabbath” (v. 16, cf. v. 18). When confronted about carrying the mat, the man replied, “The man who made me well said to me, ‘Take up your mat and walk.’” (v. 11). After he is asked, “Who is the man who said to you, ‘Take it up and walk’?” (v. 12), and has no answer (v. 13), his critics leave him alone for a time. Then “Jesus [finds] him in the temple” and says, “See, you have been made well! Do not sin any more, so that nothing worse happens to you” (v. 14). Hendricks says, “The verse alludes to the traditional view that illness was a punishment for sin; see 9:2-3" (op. cit. on v. 14). The man finds the Jews and reports that “it was Jesus who had made him well” (v. 15), which leads to their persecution of “Jesus, because he was doing such things on the sabbath” (v. 16). Hendricks reminds us that the term, “the Jews,” refers to “the religious authorities,” not all Jews (ibid., on v. 16). They were possibly chief priests since the setting is in Jerusalem, but probably Pharisees (cf. Mk 3:6; Lk. 14:3). Jesus answer, “My Father is still working, and I also am working” (v. 17), added fuel to the fire in their eyes “because he was not only breaking the sabbath, but was also calling God his own Father, thereby making himself equal to God” (v. 18). A running debate begins here that continues in the passages set in Jerusalem (5:19-47; 7:14-52; 8:12-59; 9:13-41; 10:19-39). Jesus attributes their anger with him to this healing, “Are you angry with me because I healed a man’s whole body on the sabbath?” (Jn. 7:23). Raymond Brown comments on Jesus’ defense of his sabbath work (Jn. 5:16-18):

When Jesus is accused of violating the Sabbath, the Synoptic tradition records two ways in which he defends himself: (a) on humanitarian grounds. Jesus argues that on a Sabbath a man may water an animal or pull it out of a hole; therefore why may he not do the greater good of healing a man (Luke xiii 15, xiv 5)? Something approaching this argument may be found in John vii 23: if a man may be circumcised on the Sabbath, why may not the whole man be made well on the Sabbath? (b) on theological grounds. In the Synoptic tradition Jesus argues that in the OT the priest of the Temple were allowed to do work on the Sabbath; yet now something greater than the Temple is present (Matt. xii 5-6). “The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath” (xii 8). This type of argument leads to a majestic claim by Jesus, and our present passage in John is quite similar.

Here, as elsewhere, John wants us to “come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing [we] may have life in his name” (Jn. 20:31).

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net