Deuteronomy 8:(1-) 11-20 (Episcopal tradition, vv. 11-20; Presbyterian and Lutheran traditions, vv. 1-20)

A Warning Not to Forget God in Prosperity

8:1 This entire commandment that I command you today you must diligently observe, so that you may live and increase, and go in and occupy the land that the LORD promised on oath to your ancestors. 2 Remember the long way that the LORD your God has led you these forty years in the wilderness, in order to humble you, testing you to know what was in your heart, whether or not you would keep his commandments. 3 He humbled you by letting you hunger, then by feeding you with manna, with which neither you nor your ancestors were acquainted, in order to make you understand that one does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD. 4 The clothes on your back did not wear out and your feet did not swell these forty years. 5 Know then in your heart that as a parent disciplines a child so the LORD your God disciplines you. 6 Therefore keep the commandments of the LORD your God, by walking in his ways and by fearing him. 7 For the LORD your God is bringing you into a good land, a land with flowing streams, with springs and underground waters welling up in valleys and hills, 8 a land of wheat and barley, of vines and fig trees and pomegranates, a land of olive trees and honey, 9 a land where you may eat bread without scarcity, where you will lack nothing, a land whose stones are iron and from whose hills you may mine copper. 10 You shall eat your fill and bless the LORD your God for the good land that he has given you.

11 Take care that you do not forget the LORD your God, by failing to keep his commandments, his ordinances, and his statutes, which I am commanding you today. 12 When you have eaten your fill and have built fine houses and live in them, 13 and when your herds and flocks have multiplied, and your silver and gold is multiplied, and all that you have is multiplied, 14 then do not exalt yourself, forgetting the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery, 15 who led you through the great and terrible wilderness, an arid wasteland with poisonous snakes and scorpions. He made water flow for you from flint rock, 16 and fed you in the wilderness with manna that your ancestors did not know, to humble you and to test you, and in the end to do you good. 17 Do not say to yourself, “My power and the might of my own hand have gotten me this wealth.” 18 But remember the LORD your God, for it is he who gives you power to get wealth, so that he may confirm his covenant that he swore to your ancestors, as he is doing today. 19 If you do forget the LORD your God and follow other gods to serve and worship them, I solemnly warn you today that you shall surely perish. 20 Like the nations that the LORD is destroying before you, so shall you perish, because you would not obey the voice of the LORD your God. (Deuteronomy 8:(1-) 11-20, NRSV)

On May 15, 2007 (Tuesday in the week of the Sixth Sunday of Easter, Year One), comments were repeated from February 26, 2007 (Monday in the week of the First Sunday of Lent, Year One), when comments were combined with revision and supplement from February 14, 2005 (Monday in the week of the First Sunday of Lent, Year One), and from May 3, 2005 (Tuesday in the week of the Sixth Sunday of Easter, Year One). The revised comments are repeated again here.

Moses’ admonition to obey God’s commandments continues. “Take care that you do not forget the LORD your God, by failing to keep his commandments, his ordinances, and his statutes, which I am commanding you today” (Deut. 8:11). Richard D. Nelson presents an outline of the structure of this chapter which, by its chiasm, that is, a structure in the shape of the Greek letter chi (C, cf. English ex, X), focuses on verse 11 as the central point:

v. 1: “today . . . that Yahweh swore to your ancestors”

v. 2: “remember”

vv. 2-3: “led you in the wilderness in order to humble you, to test you . . . fed you with manna which . . . nor did your ancestors know”

v. 10: “eat . . . have enough . . . good”

v. 11 “be careful lest you forget”

v. 12: “eat . . . have enough . . . good”

vv. 15-16: “led you in the . . . wilderness . . . fed you manna . . . about which your ancestors had not known, in order to humble you and to test you”

v. 18: “remember”

vv. 18-19: “that he swore to your ancestors . . . today” (Deuteronomy, OT Library, 2002, p. 108, on Deut. 8:1-20)

Nelson sees the above chiastic structure as based on “vocabulary,” and offers another, “based on topic”:

vv. 2-6: the wilderness (“heart,” vv. 2, 5; “bread,” v. 3)

vv. 7-10: the land (“water,” v. 7; “bread,” v. 9; bracketed by “good land” in vv. 7a and 10b)

v. 11: the central imperative

vv. 12-13: the land

vv. 14-16: “the wilderness (“heart,” v. 14; “water,” v. 15) (ibid., pp 108-109)

Later Nelson summarizes:

The tests of prosperity replace the tests of wilderness deprivation, but the lesson that was clear in the wilderness will be less obvious in the rich land. . . . Indeed, the danger of forgetting permeates the larger parenetic context (4:9, 23; 6:12; 8:14, 19; 9:7; cf. Hos. 13:5-6). This warning can be understood as introducing four modes of forgetting: to fail to observe the laws (v. 11 b), to be proud and ignore one’s dependency on Yahweh (v. 14), to rely on one’s own strength (v. 17), and to run after and serve other gods (vv. 19-20). (Ibid., p. 113, on v. 11)

As noted, then, Nelson sees Deuteronomy 8:11 as “the central point of the chapter” (ibid., p. 108, on Deut. 8:1-20)

The tests of prosperity replace the tests of wilderness deprivation, but the lesson that was clear in the wilderness will be less obvious in the rich land. . . . Indeed, the danger of forgetting permeates the larger parenetic context (4:9, 23; 6:12; 8:14, 19; 9:7; cf. Hos. 13:5-6). This warning can be understood as introducing four modes of forgetting: to fail to observe the laws (v. 11 b), to be proud and ignore one’s dependency on Yahweh (v. 14), to rely on one’s own strength (v. 17), and to run after and serve other gods (vv. 19-20). (ibid., p. 113)

As Nelson suggests, Moses anticipates prosperity in the promised land. “When you have eaten your fill and have built fine houses and live in them, and when your herds and flocks have multiplied, and your silver and gold is multiplied, and all that you have is multiplied” (vv. 12-13), says Moses, Israel should not become complacent: “then do not exalt yourself, forgetting the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery, who led you through the great and terrible wilderness, an arid wasteland with poisonous snakes and scorpions” (vv. 14, 15a). As Nelson’s chiastic structure indicates, the continuation reflects prosperity in terms of the issues mentioned earlier. “He made water flow for you from flint rock, and fed you in the wilderness with manna that your ancestors did not know, to humble you and to test you, and in the end to do you good” (vv. 15b, 16, cf. vv. 2, 3). “Do not say to yourself,” says Moses, “‘My power and the might of my own hand have gotten me this wealth’” (v. 17). Israel is to “remember the LORD your God, for it is he who gives you power to get wealth, so that he may confirm his covenant that he swore to your ancestors, as he is doing today” (v. 18). The reading closes with a solemn warning: “If you do forget the LORD your God and follow other gods to serve and worship them, I solemnly warn you today that you shall surely perish. Like the nations that the LORD is destroying before you, so shall you perish, because you would not obey the voice of the LORD your God” (vv. 19-20).

G. Henton Davies comments on this passage:

Truly, life in Canaan is to be Israel’s welfare state but it brings its problem. In her new affluence will Israel still recognize that she lives by everything that comes from God [as with the manna in the wilderness], or will her prosperity lead her to pride, to forgetfulness of God and worse? Is Israel to attribute her good fortune to God, which is true worship, or to herself, which is, as G. E. Wright says, virtually self-deification? The words (17), ‘My power and the might of my hand have gotten me this wealth’, show that the speaker is envisaging an alternative to God. (Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, sec. 235 f, p. 274, on Deut. 8:7-18).

Davies finds here an analysis of idolatry with three possibilities:

There is first the view that man depends upon God for everything including the welfare state with all its knowledge and achievements, for God sustains his covenant, his relationship with Israel and with all mankind, at all stages of man’s pilgrimage (cf. 18). There is secondly the danger that Israel will abandon the true God, and will serve other gods. That is the continuing idolatrous alternative to which many in Israel and in the modern world turn. There is however the third possibility. If man does not worship the true God, and reaches the stage when he is too cultured or educated to worship idols and other gods, he then is inclined to promote himself to the divine vacancy. Thus in 17 and 18 the preacher stands on the threshold of the final analysis of idolatry. In 17 it is man, in 18 it is God. Man worships either God or himself. . . . Idolatry in any form is ultimately man’s self-deification, and apparently in the wonderful blessings of a welfare state, man is more than ordinarily prone to it. (ibid., sec. 235 g, pp. 274-275, on vv. 7-18)

Hebrews 2:11-18

11 For the one who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one Father. For this reason Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers and sisters, 12 saying,

“I will proclaim your name to my brothers and sisters,

in the midst of the congregation I will praise you.”

13 And again,

”I will put my trust in him.”

And again,

”Here am I and the children whom God has given me.”

14 Since, therefore, the children share flesh and blood, he himself likewise shared the same things, so that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by the fear of death. 16 For it is clear that he did not come to help angels, but the descendants of Abraham. 17 Therefore he had to become like his brothers and sisters in every respect, so that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make a sacrifice of atonement for the sins of the people. 18 Because he himself was tested by what he suffered, he is able to help those who are being tested. (Hebrews 2:11-18, NRSV)

On May 1, 2008 (Ascension Day, Year Two), when the reading was Hebrews 2:5-18, comments were based on earlier comments, as noted there. Relevant comments from that day are repeated here with some editing and adaptation:

The Epistle to the Hebrews alternates between what we might call doctrinal or theoretical sections focused on the identity of Jesus as the final revelation of God and the greater, perfect priest and mediator of salvation to God’s people–sections based on passages from the Hebrew Bible–and stern admonitions to remain faithful to Christ. The scripture texts quoted in chapter one demonstrate that Christ, the “Son” (Heb. 1:2) is greater than the angels. The lesson drawn in the admonition (2:1-4) is that if the law of Moses, thought by many contemporary Jews to have been delivered to Moses by angels–“the message declared through angels” (Heb. 2:2a)–was given with severe sanctions for failure to obey–“every transgression or disobedience received a just penalty” (v. 2b)–we ought to “pay greater attention”–all the more!–“to what we have heard [i.e. the gospel of Jesus Christ], so that we do not drift away from it” (v. 1). The admonition is followed by an application of Psalm 8 to Jesus, as discussed last week (Tues., Feb. 24, 2009). There Psalm 8 is quoted and applied to Jesus as the Son of Man, representative human, “who for a little while was made lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone” (Heb 2:9; cf. Ps. 8:4-5).

The dominion mentioned in the Psalm (Ps. 8:6) is seen as future for Jesus, “we do not yet see everything in subjection to them/him” (Heb. 2:8). These things are part of making “the pioneer of their salvation perfect through sufferings” (Heb. 2:10). When we come to today’s reading, emphasis is placed on Jesus’ identification with us human beings. “For the one who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one Father. For this reason Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers and sisters” (v. 11). Jesus, “the one who sanctifies,” and the people, “those who are sanctified,” have the same Father, and “Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers and sisters.” The writer understands the speaker in Psalm 22:22, “A Psalm of David” in the superscription, as Christ: “I will proclaim your name to my brothers and sisters, / in the midst of the congregation I will praise you” (v. 12, citing Ps. 22:22). Two additional quotations support this proclaimed filial relationship. “I will put my trust in him” (v. 13a, citing Isa. 8:17 LXX), and “Here am I and the children whom God has given me” (v. 13b, citing Isa. 8:18, again from the LXX, with ‘God,’ for YHWH, ‘the LORD,’) The writer then adds that the similarity–the effect of the incarnation–makes him able to destroy death, “so that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil” (v. 14), thereby freeing us humans from the fear of death (v. 15), and so he can be “a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make atonement for the sins of the people” (v. 17). In conclusion, we are reminded that Jesus is able, “because he himself was tested . . . to help those [including us] who are being tested” (v. 18).

We have seen a transition in chapter two from the description of Jesus as the one who brings God’s final revelation, in contrast to the angels, credited with bringing the Mosaic law (2:2), to Jesus as “a merciful and faithful high priest” (v. 17). The ultimate benefit, to perfect “for all time those who are sanctified” (10:14), will be described later, but it is pointed out here that, “Because he himself was tested by what he suffered, he is able to help those who are being tested” (2:18; cf. 4:14-15). The writer thus describes a significant function of Christ’s “priesthood.”

John 2:1-12

The Wedding at Cana

2:1 On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. 2 Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding. 3 When the wine gave out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.” 4 And Jesus said to her, “Woman, what concern is that to you and to me? My hour has not yet come.” 5 His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.” 6 Now standing there were six stone water jars for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons. 7 Jesus said to them, “Fill the jars with water.” And they filled them up to the brim. 8 He said to them, “Now draw some out, and take it to the chief steward.” So they took it. 9 When the steward tasted the water that had become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the steward called the bridegroom 10 and said to him, “Everyone serves the good wine first, and then the inferior wine after the guests have become drunk. But you have kept the good wine until now.” 11 Jesus did this, the first of his signs, in Cana of Galilee, and revealed his glory; and his disciples believed in him.

12 After this he went down to Capernaum with his mother, his brothers, and his disciples; and they remained there a few days. (John 2:1-12, NRSV)

Most of this reading, John 2:1-11, was the reading recently for January 7, 2009 (Wednesday in the week of the Second Sunday after Christmas, ref. for Jan. 7, Year One). Comments then were based on earlier comments as noted there. The January 7 comments are repeated here:

In the Gospel of John, the first chapter reports the introduction of several disciples to Jesus (and to us): two disciples (Jn. 1:35) including Andrew (v. 40), then Simon Peter (vv. 40-41), Philip (v. 43) and Nathanael (vv. 45-51). The second chapter, and our present reading, begins by reference to “the third day” (Jn. 2:1). If we count “the next day” (1:29) as the second day, and the same phrase in verses 35 and 43 as the third and fourth days, the wedding at Cana would be put on the fifth day–but that is not likely what John meant. According to Raymond E. Brown,

Theodore of Mopsuestia . . . counts this as the third day after baptismal scene of i 29-34, with the first day mentioned in i 35, and the second in i 43. Although this is certainly a possible exegesis, most exe4gestes now count from the day of Philip’s and Nathanael’s call, suggesting that that day and the next (or perhaps two intervening days) were spent in the journey from the Jordan valley to Galilee. Since the second Cana miracle also occurs ‘after two days’ (iv 43), some suggest a purely symbolic reference to the resurrection. (The Gospel according to John, I-XII, Anchor Bible, vol. 29, 1966, p. 97, on Jn. 2:1).

On this “third day,” says John, “there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there” (Jn. 2:1). According to Brown, who shows the Jewish days as starting at sundown (Saturday evening-Sunday, as we would count it, for their Sunday,

the Mishnah (Kethuboth1) ordained that the wedding of a virgin should take place on Wednesday. This would agree with the guess that i 39 immediately preceded the Sabbath; the action of i 40-42 would have taken place on Saturday evening-Sunday; that of i 43-50 on Sunday evening-Monday; Monday evening-Tuesday would have been the second day of the journey; and Jesus would have arrived at Cana on Tuesday evening or Wednesday morning. (ibid., p. 98 on v. 1).

Harold W. Attridge observes that, “according to 21:2, Cana, in central Galilee, was the hometown of Nathanael (1:45)” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Jn. 2:1-12).

For John’s calling Mary “the mother of Jesus,” Brown observes, “Among Arabs today the ‘mother of X’ is an honorable title for a woman who has been fortunate enough to bear a son. John never calls her Mary” (loc. cit.). Although we are simply told that Mary “was there,” we may assume that it was by invitation, for “Jesus and his disciples had also (kaiv, kai, adverbial) been invited to the wedding” (v. 2). The focus is clearly on Jesus and Mary. The Greek wording of verse 2 is as follows: “And (de;, de, necessarily second–postpositive–in Greek, but first in English) was invited (ejklhvqh, eklēthē, passive voice, singular, referring to Jesus) also/too (kaiv, kai, adverbial) Jesus and (kaiv, kai, adverbial) the disciples of him to the wedding”; or simply put: “Jesus was also invited–implying Mary’s invitation–and his disciples (something of an afterthought) to the wedding.

With the setting established, John introduces a problem. “When the wine gave out,” he says, “the mother of Jesus said to him, ‘They have no wine’ ” (v. 3). This comment does not necessarily request a miracle from Jesus; Mary is simply informing him of the situation, and thus John alerts us as well. “Most commentators,” says Brown, “including Catholics like Gaechter, Braun, Van den Bussche, Boismard, Charlier, see no evidence in Mary’s request of the expectation of a miracle” (ibid., on v. 3). Jesus’ response to his mother has caused considerable debate. “Woman,” says Jesus, “what concern is that to you and to me? My hour has not yet come” (v. 4). The Greek wording of the question seems brief, almost abrupt. Tiv ejmoi; kai; soi/, guvnai; (Ti emoi kai soi? literally, “What [is that] to me and to you?”) Brown interprets this statement by comparison with an Old Testament idiom that implies no disrespect.

In the OT the Hebrew expression has two shades of meaning: (a) when one party is unjustly bothering another, the injured party may say, ‘What to me and to you?’ I.e., What have I done to you that you should do this to me? What subject of discord is there between us? (Judg. xi 12; II Chron xxxv 21; I Kings xvii 18); (b) when someone is asked to get involved in a matter which he feels is not business of his, he may say to the petitioner, ‘What to me and to you?’ i.e., That is your business; how am I involved? (II Kings iii 13; Hos. xiv 8). Thus, there is always some refusal of an inopportune involvement, and a divergence between the views of the two persons concerned; yet (a) implies hostility while (b) implies simple disengagement. Both shades of meaning appear in NT usage: (a) appears when the demons reply to Jesus (Mark i 24, v 7); seemingly (b) appears here. (ibid. p. 99, on v. 4, cf. p. 102).

We also note the reference to Jesus’ “hour,” which he says, “has not yet come” (v. 4b; cf. 7:30; 8:20; cf. also statements that the “hour” has come, 12:23, 27[twice], 13:1; 17:1). In any event, Mary instructs the servants, “Do whatever he [i.e., Jesus] tells you” (v. 5). John, as narrator, informs us: “Now standing there were six stone water jars for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons” (2:6). A large stone jar found by archaeologists in the “burnt house” at Jerusalem (destroyed by the Romans), is a likely example of the kind of jars used here (v. 6). Professor James Charlesworth, of Princeton Theological Seminary, sees the jars as an example of a kind of obsession with ritual purity in the first century (lecture in Houston several years ago). Ceramic jars would be much easier to work with, but were considered subject to impurity, whereas stone jars were not. Jesus clearly does not disregard his mother, for to the servants, he says, “Fill the jars with water.” And we are told, “they filled them up to the brim” (v. 7). Next, Jesus “said to them, ‘Now draw some out, and take it to the chief steward.’ So they took it” (v. 8). As we know, John reports this event as a miracle, which he calls a “sign” (shmei:on, sēmeion, v. 11; cf. 2:23; 3:2; 4:54; 20:31). The indication of the miracle comes when John tells us about the chief steward’s response. “When the steward tasted the water that had become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the steward called the bridegroom, and said to him, ‘Everyone serves the good wine first, and then the inferior wine after the guests have become drunk. But you have kept the good wine until now’ ” (vv. 9-10). So we have it on the authority of the chief steward–as reported by John–that a miracle has occurred in the transforming of water to wine.

John appears to begin an enumeration of Jesus’ miracles (signs) here. “Jesus did this, the first of his signs (shmei:a, sēmeia), in Cana of Galilee, and revealed his glory; and his disciples believed him” (v. 11). A second sign is enumerated later, in reference to Jesus’ healing of the royal official’s son, again in Cana (4:46-54). “Now this was the second sign (shmei:on, sēmeion) that Jesus did after coming from Judea to Galilee” (4:54). However, we have already read of other signs that Jesus performed. “When he was in Jerusalem during the Passover festival,” says John, “many believed in his name because they saw the signs (shmei:a, sēmeia) that he was doing” (2:23). Nicodemus, also in Jerusalem, tells Jesus, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God, for no one can do these signs (shmei:a, sēmeia) that you do apart from the presence of God” (3:2). And there are further references to “signs” (6:2; 20:31). One could perhaps explain the reference to a “second sign” in 4:54 as the second sign in Galilee, or by assuming that John’s narrative sequence is more topical than chronological so that the signs in Jerusalem (2:23, 3:2) were in fact later than the healing of the royal official’s son (4:46-54). But I prefer a simpler explanation, namely, that certain miracles/signs were of profound significance for John, those that he described in some detail. It is these key/signs, as it were, that he chooses to enumerate, let us say: (1) the water to wine at Cana (2:1-11), (2) healing the royal official’s son at Cana (4:46-54), (3) healing the lame man at the pool called Bethzatha (5:1-18), (4) feeding the five thousand (6:1-15), (5) Jesus walking on the sea (6:16-21), (6) healing the blind man (9:1-41), (7) the raising of Lazarus (11:1-57), and, we might add, (8) the resurrection of Jesus himself (20:1-31). John was fully aware of “many other signs (shmei:a, sēmeia)” that Jesus did–as was his final editor (cf. 21:24-25). But these seven (or eight) were selected for special emphasis, and it was these that he first began to enumerate, though the explicit process of enumeration breaks off after the second.

Some see this story as an example of Jesus’ creative power: water to wine. At one level, what Jesus did spared the bridegroom embarrassment. The steward’s comment perhaps points to the story’s significance as a parable: while the religion of the Hebrew Bible was good, the best wine comes with Jesus and the revealing of “his glory” (v. 11). Brown finds the significance of this miracle as spelled out in verse 11 (op. cit., p. 103): “Jesus did this, the first of his signs, in Cana of Galilee, and revealed his glory; and his disciples believed in him” (Jn. 2:11). “Thus,” says Brown, “the first sign had the same purpose that all the subsequent signs will have, namely, revelation about the person of Jesus.” Brown raises and answers four questions about this miracle. “(1) How did Cana reveal the glory of Jesus?” (p. 104). His answer is “Messianic replacement and abundance,” by which he refers to the common theme in John that Jesus replaces the motifs of several Jewish feasts.

The headwaiter’s statement at the end of the scene, “You have kept the choice wine until now,” can be understood as the proclamation of the coming of the messianic days. In the light of this theme Mary’s statement. “They have no wine,” becomes a poignant reflection on the barrenness of Jewish purifications, much in the vein of Mark vii 1-24.

The abundance of wine (120 gallons . . .) now becomes intelligible. One of the consistent OT figures for the joy of the final days is an abundance of wine. (ibid., p. 105)

Brown asks more questions, but I’ll list them briefly. His answers are fascinating, but the Anchor Bible commentary series is readily available in many libraries. Question (2): “How did Cana complete the call of the disciples?” (p. 105) Note the affirmation of John 2:11. “(3) The symbolism of the Mother of Jesus, the ‘woman,’ at Cana.” Brown refers to the woman of Revelation, chapter 12, which is likely a symbol of the people of God. “However, often in the Bible collective figures are based on historical ones” (p. 108). Brown’s fourth point (4) is about “The choice wine at Cana and the Eucharist.”

I see the miracle at Cana as a manifestation of Jesus’ creative power. I am coming to see the placement of this story as a key to the overall meaning of John’s Gospel.

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net