Isaiah 51:17-23

17 Rouse yourself, rouse yourself!

Stand up, O Jerusalem,

you who have drunk at the hand of the LORD

the cup of his wrath,

who have drunk to the dregs

the bowl of staggering.

18 There is no one to guide her

among all the children she has borne;

there is no one to take her by the hand

among all the children she has brought up.

19 These two things have befallen you

–who will grieve with you?–

devastation and destruction, famine and sword–

who will comfort you?

20 Your children have fainted,

they lie at the head of every street

like an antelope in a net;

they are full of the wrath of the LORD,

the rebuke of your God.

21 Therefore hear this, you who are wounded,

who are drunk, but not with wine:

22 Thus says your Sovereign, the LORD,

your God who pleads the cause of his people:

See, I have taken from your hand the cup of staggering;

you shall drink no more

from the bowl of my wrath.

23 And I will put it into the hand of your tormentors,

who have said to you,

“Bow down, that we may walk on you”;

and you have made your back like the ground

and like the street for them to walk on. (Isaiah 51:17-23, NRSV)

On January 29, 2007 (Monday in the week of the Fourth Sunday after the Epiphany, Year One), comments were repeated with revision and supplement from January 31, 2005 (Monday in the week of the Fourth Sunday after the Epiphany, Year One); the revised comments are repeated here:

As noted yesterday, in the preceding reading (Isa. 51:9-16), the people ask why God has not yet acted. “Awake, awake, put on strength, / O arm of the LORD!” (Isa. 51:9a, b). “Was it not you who cut Rahab to pieces?” (v. 9e), “who dried up the sea” (v. 10a). In today’s reading God turns the tables and addresses the people: “Rouse yourself, rouse yourself! / Stand up, O Jerusalem” (51:17a, b). Israel has drunk the “cup” of the LORD’s “wrath” (v. 17c, d), “drunk to the dregs / the bowl of staggering” (v. 17e, f). According to J. J. M. Roberts, the “cup of his wrath [is] a common symbol of judgment that plays on the disorientation, shame, and vulnerability of intoxicated individuals to point to the same characteristics among the politically oppressed (Jer. 25:15-29; Hab. 2:15-16)” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Isa. 51:17). Jerusalem has “no one to guide her,” says the LORD, speaking through the prophet, “among all the children she has borne; / there is no one to take her by the hand / among all the children she has brought up” (v. 18). She has undergone “two things,” for which the LORD asks, “who will grieve with you?” (v. 19a, b). For, “devastation and destruction,” and for “famine and sword,” asks the LORD, “who will comfort you?” (v. 19, c, d). Jerusalem is told, “Your children have fainted, / they lie at the head of every street / like an antelope in a net; / they are full of the wrath of the LORD, / the rebuke of your God” (v. 20). Roberts puts the situation this way: “The depopulation of Jerusalem is portrayed through the image of a woman who has no children left to help or comfort her in her old age” (ibid., on vv. 18-20). She “lies exhausted, depopulated, and destroyed” (Victor R. Gold and William L. Holladay, NOAB, 2^nd ed., on vv. 18-20). The LORD recognizes that the people “are drunk, but not with wine” (v. 21). but he has “taken from your hand the cup of staggering” (v. 22c), and he tells his people, “you shall drink no more wine / from the bowl of my wrath” (v. 22d, e). The LORD is prepared to deliver them and redeem them. According to Gold and Holladay, the “cup of staggering,” God’s wrath, will be given to Israel’s oppressors (ibid., on vv. 21-23). “And I will put it into the hand of your tormentors, / who have said to you, / ‘Bow down, that we may walk on you’; / and you have made your back like the ground / and like the street for them to walk on” (v. 23). John N. Oswalt begins his comments on this passage (Isa. 51:17-23, plus 52:1-12) with a summary:

.

Now God turns the tables on his people. . . . If their sins were really to be defeated and they were to be restored to God’s favor, then let it happen! Awake, awake! But now God says it is not for him to awake but for them. Twice (51:17; 52:1) he says it is they who must rise up and take by faith what is offered to them. It is not a question of needing to persuade God to do what he is reluctant to do. Rather, it is a question of the people’s developing and maintaining such a faith that when God acts, they will be ready to receive what he has done. (Isaiah, The NIV Application Commentary, 2003, p. 575, on Isa. 51:17-52:12)

May we too be alert and ready to receive the Lord’s blessings. “If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask him!” (Mt. 7:11).

Galatians 4:1-11

4:1 My point is this: heirs, as long as they are minors, are no better than slaves, though they are the owners of all the property; 2 but they remain under guardians and trustees until the date set by the father. 3 So with us; while we were minors, we were enslaved to the elemental spirits of the world. 4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 in order to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as children. 6 And because you are children, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” 7 So you are no longer a slave but a child, and if a child then also an heir, through God.

Paul Reproves the Galatians

8 Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to beings that by nature are not gods. 9 Now, however, that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and beggarly elemental spirits? How can you want to be enslaved to them again? 10 You are observing special days, and months, and seasons, and years. 11 I am afraid that my work for you may have been wasted. (Galatians 4:1-11, NRSV)

On June 7, 2008 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 1, Year Two), when the reading was Galatians 3:23-4:11, comments were repeated from earlier as noted there. Compare also the comments of December 24, 2007, when this was the Presbyterian reading. The following comments are based on these earlier comments.

Paul continues to compare being under the law to being in Christ. “My point is this: heirs, as long as they are minors, are no better than slaves, though they are the owners of all the property; but they remain under guardians and trustees until the date set by the father” (Gal. 4:1-2). Being under the law is being under “guardians [ejpivtropoi, epitropoi] and trustees [oijkonovmoi, oikonomoi]” (Gal. 4:2) (cf. “disciplinarian,” paidagwgovV, paidagōgos, 3:24). “Minors,” says Sheila Briggs, “like other members of a Roman family other than the father, had few rights” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on Gal. 4:1).

As Paul continues, a new perspective appears. One of the issues has been whether to circumcise Gentile believers like Titus (Gal. 2:3), but the enslavement discussed in chapter 4 is to “the elemental spirits of the world” (Gal. 4:3), according to Bruce M. Metzger and John Reumann, “cosmic powers controlling the universe (4:8); or the rudiments of the world (earth, air, fire, water), or rudimentary rules and religious observances (vv. 9-10; Col. 2:8, 20)” (NOAB, 2^nd ed., 1994, on Gal. 4:3). When this is explained further, “when you did not know God, you were enslaved to beings that by nature are not gods” (v. 8), Paul seems to refer to worship of pagan gods. Are these the people “under the law” whom Christ came to redeem (vv. 4-5)? They must have been Gentiles who have come under some Jewish influence. “You are observing special days, and months, and seasons, and years” (v. 10). According to Ronald Y. K. Fung, “The issue, then, is ‘not the observation of religious usages as such . . . but the basis of the justification before God’; the legalistic approach advocated by the Galatian agitators and the gospel of free grace proclaimed by Paul are irreconcilably opposed to each other” (The Epistle to the Galatians, NICNT, 1988, p. 194 on Gal. 4:11, citing H. N. Ridderbos).

Galatians 4:1-7 is “elaboration of . . . the preceding verses (3:23-29)” (ibid., p. 179). In the paragraph the image of being under the law gradually changes from minor children (Gal. 4:3) to slavery (v. 7a). The transition for the readers is from being “minors, no better than slaves” (v. 1) to children and heirs of God (v. 7b). The remedy, the basis for this transition, begins with the coming of Christ. “But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law” (v. 4). According to Briggs, “born of a woman, born under the law stresses Jesus’ human and Jewish birth, seen by Paul as the enslaved human condition, in contrast to the freedom Christ brings to those adopted as God’s children” (op. cit., on v. 4). The redemption through Christ, the purpose of his coming, is “in order to i{na (hina) redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption (uiJoqesiva, huiothesia) as children” (v. 5). The term uiJoqesiva (huiothesia), a compound of uiJovV (huios), “son,” and qevsiV (thesis), “placing” is “a legal technical term of ‘adoption’ pf children [which] in our literature, i.e. in Paul, only [used] in a transferred sense of a transcendent filial relationship between God and humans (with the legal aspect, not gender specificity, as major semantic component” (Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich [BDAG], A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3^rd ed., 2000, s.v. uiJoqesiva, huiothesia). In this sense, the lexicon cites Gal. 4:5; Eph. 1:5; Rom. 8:15, where “pneu:ma uiJoqesivaV [pneuma huiothesias, ‘spirit of adoption’] . . . [is] opposed [to] pneu:ma douleivaV [pneuma douleias. ‘spirit of slavery’] = such a spirit as is possessed by a slave, not by the son of the house” (ibid.). Whereas, we were formerly children and heirs of limited status, “no better than slaves” (v. 1), we are now children and heirs of quality status. “And because you are children, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father (Abba oJ pathvr, Abba ho patēr)!” (v. 6; cf. Mk. 14:36; Rom. 8:15). Abba is “Aramaic for Father,” NRSV text note e). “So,” explains Paul, “you are no longer a slave but a child, and if a child then also an heir, through God” (v. 7).

It might appear that we are back where we started, because at the beginning of the paragraph we are legal minors who do not inherit “until the date set by the father” (v. 2). Fung explains:

We have consistently understood the references to the status of sons in [4:5-7] in the sense of full-grown sonship, because this appears to be the sense required by Paul’s argument in 3:26, and it is reasonable to suppose that this is also the sense intended in the present passage . . . While the main idea in the human analogy is that of an heir who is underage, in his application of it Paul has combined two metaphors (v. 3, “During our minority we were slaves . . .”) so that, instead of saying simply “When the fulness of time arrived, God sent forth his Son . . . in order that we might come of age,” he says “. . . in order that we might receive adoption as sons–and full-grown sons at that”–thus weaving together the idea of “becoming an adopted son from a slave” and that of “the heir coming of age.” (p. 186, on Gal. 4:7)

The second paragraph of today’s reading describes a relapse into observance of “special days, and months, and seasons, and years” (v. 10)–presumably as the assumed basis for salvation–as a return to enslavement: “Formerly,” says Paul, “when you did not know God, you were enslaved to beings that by nature are not gods” (v. 8). “Beings” does not represent a Greek word here, but is necessary to clarify the phrase which is literally “to the by nature not being gods,” cf. “ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods” (AV/KJV). These “beings” are defined by Paul’s questions: “Now, however, that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and beggarly elemental spirits (ta; ajsqenh: kai; ptwca; stoicei:a, ta asthenē kai ptōcha stoicheia)? How can you want to be enslaved to them again?” (v. 9). Where this relapse is described as turning back again “to the weak and beggarly elemental spirits” (stoicei:a, stoicheia, v. 9, cf. v. 3 NRSV). The New International Version translates the phrase as “to those weak and miserable principles” (Gal 4:9 NIV). In revision, Today’s New International Version has “to those weak and miserable forces [note h: Or principles].” Fung, while noting that these alternative understandings are “keenly debated,” offers “a third option”:

which seems to do justice to the facts of the case, including (a) the linguistic consideration that “if stoicheion in Galatians and Colossians is to be understood in the light of usage outside the NT, the most obvious sense is ‘element,’” [citing G. Delling] and (b) the contextual consideration that Paul affirms a certain identification of Judaism and paganism as alike being forms of service to the stoicheia [citing B. Reicke]. . . . Paul includes in the stoicheia of the world “on the one side the Torah with its statutes (4:3-5 . . .), and then on the other side the world of false gods whom the recipients [of his letter] once served, 4:8f.” [citing G. Delling]. On this understanding, the elements of the world can “cover all the things in which man places his trust apart from the living God revealed in Christ; they become his gods, and he becomes their slave” [citing H. -H. Easer]. . . . for the readers to submit to the demands of the Judaizers would represent a relapse [to the enslavement they once endured in paganism]. (Fung, pp. 191-192, on Gal. 4:9, with ref. to vv. 8-11)

Although verse 9 seems to give the problem a pagan cast, Paul adds that the readers “are observing special days, and months, and seasons and years” (v. 10; cf. Col. 2:16), which means, according to Briggs, that “the Galatians are observing the Jewish calender” (op. cit., on v. 10). Paul fears that the intruders in Galatia, sometimes called “the Judaizers” have destroyed his work of evangelism there. “I am afraid that my work for you may have been wasted (v. 11). Later, he calls for faithful adherence to Christ: “For freedom Christ has set us free. Stand firm, therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery” (5:1).

Mark 7:24-37

The Syrophoenician Woman’s Faith (Mt 15.21-28)

24 From there he set out and went away to the region of Tyre. He entered a house and did not want anyone to know he was there. Yet he could not escape notice, 25 but a woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit immediately heard about him, and she came and bowed down at his feet. 26 Now the woman was a Gentile, of Syrophoenician origin. She begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter. 27 He said to her, “Let the children be fed first, for it is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.” 28 But she answered him, “Sir, even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.” 29 Then he said to her, “For saying that, you may go--the demon has left your daughter.” 30 So she went home, found the child lying on the bed, and the demon gone.

Jesus Cures a Deaf Man (Mt 15.29-31)

31 Then he returned from the region of Tyre, and went by way of Sidon towards the Sea of Galilee, in the region of the Decapolis. 32 They brought to him a deaf man who had an impediment in his speech; and they begged him to lay his hand on him. 33 He took him aside in private, away from the crowd, and put his fingers into his ears, and he spat and touched his tongue. 34 Then looking up to heaven, he sighed and said to him, “Ephphatha,” that is, “Be opened.” 35 And immediately his ears were opened, his tongue was released, and he spoke plainly. 36 Then Jesus ordered them to tell no one; but the more he ordered them, the more zealously they proclaimed it. 37 They were astounded beyond measure, saying, “He has done everything well; he even makes the deaf to hear and the mute to speak.” (Mark 7:24-37, NRSV)

On March 3, 2008 (Monday in the week of the Fourth Sunday of Lent, Year Two), comments were repeated from August 3, 2007 (Friday in the week of the Sunday closest to July 27, Year One), when comments were used with revision and supplement on January 29, 2007 (Monday in the week of the Fourth Sunday after the Epiphany, Year One), comments which were repeated from earlier as noted there. On January 27, 2008 (Sunday in the week of the Third Sunday of Epiphany, Year Two), comments on a portion of today’s reading, Mark 7:31-37, were repeated from earlier, as noted there. The combined comments ar used again here.

The combined comments are used again here:

As noted last Friday (Jan. 30, 2009; cf. comments Saturday, Jan. 31), Luke’s narrative ceases to follow the order of Mark for several episodes. The parallel passages in Matthew and Mark for today’s reading are in the separate file, the Syrophoenician Woman.

Jesus leaves Galilee for “the region of Tyre” (Mk. 7:24a), or “the district of Tyre and Sidon” (Mt. 15:21), which amounts to the same thing. (The modern city of Sidon was mentioned in news reports about the confrontation between Lebanon, or more precisely, Hezbolah, and Israel in the summer of 2006.) The purpose of the trip north was apparently something of a retreat, for Mark says, “He entered a house and did not want anyone to know he was there. Yet he could not escape notice” (Mk. 7:24b), “but a woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit immediately heard about him, and she came and bowed down at his feet” (v. 25). Matthew doesn’t mention the retreat aspect, or the house, but after reporting Jesus coming, says “Just then a Canaanite woman from that region came out and started shouting, ‘Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is tormented by a demon’” (Mt. 15:22). Mark identifies the woman as “a Gentile (  JEllhnivV, Hellēnis, feminine), of Syrophoenician (S;urofoinivkissa, Syrophoinikissa, feminine) origin (Mk. 7:26a), and reports her plea with indirect quotation: “She begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter” (v. 26b). According to Philip L. Shuler,

The term ‘Syrophoenician’ indicates that this woman was from Phoenicia, located in the Roman province of Syria, or, more specifically, from the area of the old cities of Tyre and Sidon. In the parallel passage (Matt. 15:22), the woman is called a ‘Canaanite [gunh; Cananaiva, gynē Chananaia],’ an ancient geographical designation that would have included this area. (Harper’s Bible Dictionary, 1985, s. v. Syrophoenician)

Dennis C. Duling says that “Canaanite [is] a scriptural term for ancient Israel’s pagan enemies (see, e.g., Deut 7:1; cf. Mk. 7:26) here used to designate a Gentile” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Mt. 15:22). The term translated “Gentile” in Mark 7:26 is literally “a Greek woman” (  JEllhnivV, Hellēnis, feminine), but the point, of course, is that she is not a Jew. Matthew reports that at first, Jesus “did not answer her at all,” adding that “his disciples came and urged him, saying ‘Send her away, for she keeps shouting after us’” (Mt. 15:23). In Mark he responds to her directly, saying “Let the children be fed first, for it is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs” (Mk. 7:27; cf. Mt. 15:26). By children, Jesus means the Jewish people, as reflected in Matthew’s pointed statement, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Mt. 15:24; cf. 10:5-6, in the instructions for the mission of the Twelve). One would like to think that Jesus speaks of throwing the children’s food to the dogs (Gentiles) with a twinkle in his eye. His last words in Matthew’s Gospel call for the disciples to “make disciples of all nations” (pavnta ta; e[qnh, panta ta ethnē, a term often translated “Gentiles”), and in Matthew’s Gospel the first persons to recognize the newborn Jesus and “pay him homage” (Mt. 2:1) are “wise men (mavgoi, magoi, sometimes ‘Magi’ in English) from the East” (2:1), that is, Gentiles. The Gentiles are clearly not forgotten in this most Jewish of Gospels.

Her rejoinder accepts the “dog” label, but continues to plea for help. “Sir, even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs” (Mk. 7:28; cf. Mt. 15:27). Vincent Taylor suggests that the woman’s reply was in kind,

for some encouragement must have been given to prompt her witty reply in [v.] 28, and for this purpose, the forbidding words of 27b [“it is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs”] are not adequate. ‘Let the children first be fed’ [not included in Matthew’s version of the story, cf. Mt. 15:26], supplies just what is necessary. (Vincent Taylor, The Gospel According to St. Mark, 1975, p. 350, on Mk. 7:27-28)

Jesus responds, by noting her persistence and giving the woman her request. He says, “For saying that, you may go–the demon has left your daughter” (Mk. 7:29). Matthew’s version perhaps compensates for the earlier negative view of this “Gentile woman”: “Woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish” (Mt. 15:28a). And both Gospels report the essentially instant exorcism at a distance. “And her daughter was healed instantly,” says Matthew (Mt. 15:28b). Mark reports that “she went home [and] found the child lying on the bed, and the demon gone” (Mk 7:30).

Jesus returns by way of Sidon (Mk. 7:31a; cf. Mt. 15:21, “Tyre and Sidon” where Mark mentions only Tyre, Mk. 7:24). The return is “towards the Sea of Galilee, in the region of the Decapolis” (Mk. 7:31b). Where Matthew generalizes about a number of healings (Mt:15:30-31), Mark reports the healing of a specific individual. “They brought to him a deaf man who had an impediment in his speech; and they begged him to lay his hand on him” (Mk. 7:32). It is interesting that Jesus was “begged” to perform both healings (vv. 26, 32). The Greek verbs are different (hjrwvta, ērōta, Mk. 7:26; parakalou:sin, parakalousin, v. 32), but both are translated as “begged” (NRSV, TNIV) or with forms of “beseech” (KJV). Jesus responds immediately in this instance–still apparently in Gentile territory. “He took him aside in private, away from the crowd, and put his fingers into his ears, and he spat and touched his tongue. Then looking up to heaven, he sighed and said to him, ‘Ephphatha,’ that is, ‘Be opened’” (vv. 33-34). Taylor comments on these methods.

The putting of the fingers into the man’s ears, the spitting, and the touching of the tongue powerfully suggest to him [the deaf mute] the possibility of a cure. Such actions are common to the technique of Greek and Jewish healers . . . A well-known story connected with Vespasian (Tacitus, Hist. iv. 81, Suetonius, Vesp. 7) records how he healed a man with spittle. Its use by Jews with incantations was condemned by the Rabbis. Only here, in the story of the cure of the Blind Man [Mk. 8:22-26], and in the Johannine narrative of the Man born Blind [John, chap. 9], is Jesus recorded to have used spittle in his healings. . . .  So incidental is the reference in the present narrative that we cannot be wholly certain how it was used. (ibid., p. 354, on Mk. 7:33-34)

The word “ephphatha” (ejffaqa, ephphatha), translated as “Be opened” (dianoivcqhti, dianoichthēti, imperative), is an “Aramaic word  . . .  a contraction of the form of the ethpeel (Ht1P4t4x@ , [’ethp^ethach] )” (Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich [BDAG], A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3^rd ed., 2000, s.v. ejffaqa, ephphatha). It occurs only here in the New Testament. The healing again is immediate (v. 35), and Jesus orders them “to tell no one” (v. 36a) but, almost as though in reference to the many healings reported by Matthew (15:30-31), Mark adds, “the more he ordered them [to be silent], the more zealously they proclaimed it” (v. 36). Mark’s report that the people “were astounded beyond measure, saying, ‘He has done everything well; he even makes the deaf to hear and the mute to speak’” (v. 37), suggests that this healing is typical, representing many others, as Matthew reports. Matthew’s report that the crowd “praised the God of Israel” (Mt. 15:31) suggests the Gentile context that is more clearly indicated in Mark’s version (“the Decapolis,” Mk. 7:31).

For the woman, and for the caretakers of the man who was deaf and had a speech impediment, the problems were serious. Jesus responded to their needs, and he will respond to ours.

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net