Lamentations 1:1-5 (6-9) 10-12

The text of this passage is presented in two columns in the following table in order to show the division of the text into stanzas.

On March 17, 2008 (Monday of Holy Week, Year Two), comments were repeated from October 23, 2007 (Tuesday in the week of the Twenty-first Sunday after Pentecost, references for the week of the Sunday closest to October 19, Year One), when comments were based on those of April 10, 2006 (Monday of Holy Week, Year Two). In these instances, material was drawn from earlier comments, from April 5, 2004 (Monday of Holy Week) included in an E-mail sent Saturday April 3, 2004, for Holy Week (April 4-10) for the former, and comments on Lamentations 1:1-5 (6-9) 10-12 of October 18, 2005 (Tuesday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 19, Year One) for the latter. The following comments are based on those of March 17, 2008 with some reference to the earlier comments:

The first four chapters of Lamentations are in the form of alphabetic acrostics. In chapters one, two and four, each has twenty-two verses, one for each letter of the Hebrew alphabet. And each verse begins with the next letter of the alphabet: verse one begins with aleph (x), verse two with beth (b), verse three with gimmel (g), and so forth. (This pattern is found in several of the Psalms, e.g. Pss. 9-10, 25, 34, 37 and others.) Chapter three of Lamentations has three lines–three verses–for each letter. (Ps. 119 has eight lines–verses–for each letter, 176 verses in all = 8 times 22.) But each verse in Lamentations 1 and 2 has three lines–except 1:7 and 2:19 (where for each the BHS (Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, 1935, reprint 1965) apparatus marks a line, 1:7b and 2:19d, as “added”); chapter 4 has two lines per verse. This makes the chapters, except chapter 4, which is a little shorter, approximately the same length as chapter 3 with its three lines per stanza. In the present series, we have two selected readings from Lamentations, today’s from the first part of chapter 1 (Lam. 1:1-5 (6-9) 10-12), and tomorrow’s from the middle of chapter two (Lam. 2:8-15). You may note that a more complete series of selections from Lamentations, chapters 1-3, is used in the weekdays of Holy Week, Year Two, and comments may be found in the Archives for Monday, May 17, through Saturday, May 22, 2008.

You may wonder (as I have) how spontaneous emotion or rigorous reflection can be made to fit in such a strict formal pattern. But then, poetry has been defined as “emotion remembered in tranquillity” (Wordsworth), and Shakespeare’s sonnets, with their strict fourteen line form, are profound expressions of emotion. The following paragraphs are marked by the Hebrew words which form the alphabetic acrostic, and the English equivalent in bold print. Words so marked would be first in the Hebrew word order, but not necessarily in the English word order. One will note that often the Hebrew sentence word order begins with the verb, which facilitates the alphabetical acrostic order.

R. B. Y. Scott and Roland E. Murphy call today’s Lamentation reading a “Lament over Zion” (Lam. 1:1-11), with the next verse, the beginning of a “Lament uttered by Zion” (vv. 12-22; NOAB, 2^nd ed., 1994, on Lam. 1:1-11 and vv. 12-22; cf. F. W. Dobbs Allsopp, NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, who calls the second part, “The City’s Lament”). As the reading begins, the poet exclaims, “How lonely sits the city / that once was full of people! / How like a widow she has become" (Lam. 1:1). "Jerusalem remembers, / in the days of her affliction and wandering, / all the precious things / that were hers in days of old" (v. 7). The lament is for the desolation brought about by the Babylonian captivity of the sixth century and its aftermath. But all of us, as God's people, face times of loss and adjustment with feelings that seem best expressed in lament. For Jesus' disciples, events of Holy Week seemed at first to lead into darkness.

1. Hk!yx1 (’êkāh). As noted above this reading from Lamentations (aleph through lamed) laments the present state of Jerusalem. “How lonely sits the city / that once was full of people!” (Lam. 1:1a, b). Jerusalem’s loneliness is compared to that of a widow, in stark contrast to her former state. “How like a widow she has become, / she that was great among the nations! / She that was a princess among the provinces / has become a vassal” (v 1c, d, e, f). The New Jewish Publication Society translation (1985, 1999) renders the verse as follows:

Alas (’êkāh)!

Lonely sits the city / Once great with people!

She that was great among the nations / Is become like a widow!

The princess among states / Is become a thrall,

In comment, Daniel Grossberg says, “Alas! This mournful cry is characteristic of the Hebrew elegy and also opens chs 2 and 4 (cf. Isa. 1:21; 2:1; 4:1). It suggests a contrast between a former glorious state and the current state of misery. The image of the widow evokes loneliness and bereavement, and also vulnerability” (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, on Lam. 1:1).

2. HK!b4t9 OkB! (bākô tivkāh). Jerusalem “weeps bitterly in the night, / with tears on her cheeks” (v. 2a, b). The prophets have accused Jerusalem of unfaithfulness to the LORD, comparing her idolatry to adultery. Now, “among all her lovers / she has no one to comfort her” (v. 2c, d), because “all her friends have dealt treacherously with her, / they have become her enemies” (v. 2e, f). Dobbs-Allsopp sees her “Lovers” here as “literally Judah’s political allies, but metaphorically her loved ones who have neglected their obligation of compassion” (op. cit., on Lam. 1:2). “For the metaphor of allies as lovers,” he adds, “see Ezek. 16:26-28.” Grossberg sees the term “friends” as related to both metaphorical senses, that is, “her political allies who should have aided and comforted her, [but] the term also points to Judah’s idolatry, her pursuit of ‘friends’ other than her ‘husband,’ God” (op. cit., on Lam. 1:2). According to Kathleen O’Connor, “Some of these former allies made common cause with the Babylonians when they attacked Jerusalem (see 2 Kings 24:2; Ezek. 25:12-17)” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Lam. 1:2).

3. Ht!l4G4! (gāl^etāh). “Judah has gone into exile (gāl^etāh) with suffering / and hard servitude” (v. 3a, b). For “suffering and hard servitude” (NRSV), the NJPS translation has “misery and harsh oppression,” which Grossberg says “recall the enslavement in Egypt (Gen. 15:13; Exod. 1:11; Deut. 26:6)” (op. cit., on v. 3). “Judah’s exile to Babylon,” he adds, “is like a second Egyptian enslavement.” As the lament continues, we are told that Judah “lives now among the nations, / and finds no resting place; / her pursuers have all overtaken her / in the midst of her distress” (v. 3c,, d, e, f).

4. NOy>c9 yker4D1 (darkê tsiyôn). “The roads to Zion (darkê tsiyôn) mourn, / for no one comes to the festivals” (v. 4a, b). Various aspects of “greater Jerusalem” share her mourning, the roads over which people should come to the festivals, “her gates,” which are “desolate” (v. 4c), her priests and young girls (v. 4d, e); in fact, “her lot is bitter” (v. 4f). According to Grossberg, “The once-busy thoroughfares are empty of pilgrims to the Temple, for the Temple is destroyed and the people are gone” (op. cit., on v. 4).

5. Uyh! (hāyû). “Her foes have become (hāyû) the masters, / her enemies prosper, / because the LORD has made her suffer / for the multitude of her transgressions; / her children have gone away, / captives before the foe” (v. 5). For “the multitude of her transgressions,” the recent Jewish translation (NJPS 1985, 1999) has “her many transgressions” (a trivial difference), which Grossberg sees as “the first of several admissions (1:8, 9, 14, 18, 20) that the sins of Israel brought on the destruction” (ibid., on v. 5). Dobbs-Allsopp observes that “although 2 Kings attributes Judah’s destruction to specific transgressions (2 Kings 21:10-15), here the sins are not specified” (op. cit., on v. 5).

6. xc2Y20v1 (wayyētsē’ [Gk. kai ;ejxhvrqh, kai exērthē = xc!Y0_, BHS apparatus]), “From daughter Zion has departed (wayyētsē’) / all her majesty / Her princes have become like stags / that find no pasture; / they fled without strength / before the pursuer” (v. 6). The city of Jerusalem, called here “daughter Zion,” has lost all her glory and charm as her princes fled before their enemy.

7. hr!k4z!& (zāk^erāh). “Jerusalem remembers, / in the days of her affliction and wandering, / all the precious things / that were hers in days of old. / when her people fell into the hand of the foe, / and there was no one to help her, / the foe looked on mocking / over her downfall” (v. 7). This verse, or stanza, is the first of two that break the three-lines-per-stanza [six-half-lines-per-stanza] pattern. As noted above, the second line of verse 7, “all the precious things / that were hers in days of old,” is marked as a probable addition in the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. If this is correct, the emphasis would fall on remembering the disaster of Jerusalem’s devastation rather than the mere loss of “precious things.”

8. hx!F4H! xF04H2 (chēt^e’ chāt^e’āh). “Jerusalem sinned grievously (chēt ^e’ chāt ^e’āh), / so she has become a mockery; / all who honored her despise her, / for they have seen her nakedness; / she herself groans, / and turns her face away” (v. 8). The confession that Jerusalem has “sinned grievously” is sincere (cf. v. 14). But the consequent punishment through defeat, devastation and captivity are disgraceful. According to O’Connor, “Nakedness was considered shameful and humiliating (see Gen. 9:22-23; Ex. 20:26; Isa. 47:3; Ezek. 16:37-39. Ancient reliefs show prisoners being marched into captivity stark naked” (op. cit., on Lam. 1:8). The New Jewish Publishing Society translation has “For they have seen her disgraced” (Lam. 1:8 NJPS) where others have “For they have seen her nakedness” (NRSV). Grossberg notes that “disgraced” is literally “nakedness” (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, on Lam. 1:8).

9. h0t!x!m4F_ (tum’āthāh). “Her uncleanness ( ) was in her skirts; / she took no thought of her future; / her downfall was appalling, / with none to comfort her. / ‘O LORD, look at my affliction, / for the enemy has triumphed!’ ” (v. 9). The lamenting tone continues with a notable shift to the first person in the third line here, as the poet lets personified Jerusalem speak for herself (v. 9e, f). But though the first person here anticipates the first person style of verses 12-22 (cf. above), the poet resumes his (or her) third person account in verse 10.

10. Ody! (yādô). “Enemies have stretched out their hands (yādô) / over all her precious things,” says the lament; “she has even seen the nations / invade her sanctuary, / those whom you forbade / to enter your congregation” (v. 10). According to Dobbs-Allsopp, by “precious things” is meant “Temple treasures (cf. 2 Chr. 36:10)” (op. cit., on v. 10). According to Grossberg, “The Temple has been violated as a woman is sexually violated” (op. cit., on v. 10). Dobbs-Allsopp says that “Invade [UxBA6, bā’û] elsewhere connotes sexual intercourse (Gen. 6:4; 2 Sam. 16:21; Ezek. 23:44; Prov. 6:29), suggesting rape” (ibid.); the word xvb (b-w-’ ) is, of course, a very common word for all kinds of coming and going (William L. Holladay, A concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 1971, 4^th impression, 1978, s.v. xvb (b-w-’ ). But Jerusalem certainly has been violated metaphorically, if not literally.

11. h.m0!f1-lK! (kol-‘ammāh). “All her people (kol-‘ammāh) groan / as they search for bread; / they trade their treasures for food / to revive their strength” (v. 11a, b, c, d). Wars and military sieges often lead to famine. One of the provisions for Jeremiah at the end of the siege was “an allowance of food and a present” (Jer. 40:5; cf. the later provision of dining privileges for King Jehoiachin in Babylonian captivity, 2 Kgs. 25:30).

At this point the poet allows the first-person voice of Jerusalem to return for the rest of the chapter (except v. 17). “Look, O LORD,” she says, “and see / how worthless I have become” (v. 11e, f).

12. Mk,ylex3 xOl (lô’ ’^a lêkem). “Is it nothing to you (lô’ ’ ^a lêkem), all you who pass by?” cries out lady Jerusalem. “Look and see / if there is any sorrow like my sorrow, / which was brought upon me (yl9 llaOf, ‘ôlal lî ), / which the LORD inflicted (hgAOh, hôgāh) / on the day of his fierce anger” (v. 12). Again Dobbs-Allsopp calls attention to the strong language. “The Heb. word translated weakly as was brought properly conveys violence: torture or rape (1 Sam. 31:4; Jer. 38:19; Judg. 19:25)” (op. cit. on v. 12). He refers to the words yl9 llaOf (‘ôlal lî ), “be inflicted on” (Holladay, s.v. llf, ‘-l-l, poal conjugation). The following lines refer to what “the Lord inflicted (hgAOh, hôgāh),” with a term translated “torment” in Isaiah 51:23 (Holladay, s.v. hgy (y-g-h). The violent actions are difficult to attribute to God, but the prophets had incessantly warned that God would use the foreign nations to punish Israel.

or Jeremiah 40:7-41:3 (Presbyterian and Lutheran Traditions)

Gedaliah Favors Submission to the Babylonians

7 When all the leaders of the forces in the open country and their troops heard that the king of Babylon had appointed Gedaliah son of Ahikam governor in the land, and had committed to him men, women, and children, those of the poorest of the land who had not been taken into exile to Babylon, 8 they went to Gedaliah at Mizpah–Ishmael son of Nethaniah, Johanan son of Kareah, Seraiah son of Tanhumeth, the sons of Ephai the Netophathite, Jezaniah son of the Maacathite, they and their troops. 9 Gedaliah son of Ahikam son of Shaphan swore to them and their troops, saying, "Do not be afraid to serve the Chaldeans. Stay in the land and serve the king of Babylon, and it shall go well with you. 10 As for me, I am staying at Mizpah to represent you before the Chaldeans who come to us; but as for you, gather wine and summer fruits and oil, and store them in your vessels, and live in the towns that you have taken over." 11 Likewise, when all the Judeans who were in Moab and among the Ammonites and in Edom and in other lands heard that the king of Babylon had left a remnant in Judah and had appointed Gedaliah son of Ahikam son of Shaphan as governor over them, 12 then all the Judeans returned from all the places to which they had been scattered and came to the land of Judah, to Gedaliah at Mizpah; and they gathered wine and summer fruits in great abundance. (Jeremiah 40:7-12, NRSV)

Johanan Warns Gedaliah About Threats to his Life

13 Now Johanan son of Kareah and all the leaders of the forces in the open country came to Gedaliah at Mizpah 14 and said to him, "Are you at all aware that Baalis king of the Ammonites has sent Ishmael son of Nethaniah to take your life?" But Gedaliah son of Ahikam would not believe them. 15 Then Johanan son of Kareah spoke secretly to Gedaliah at Mizpah, "Please let me go and kill Ishmael son of Nethaniah, and no one else will know. Why should he take your life, so that all the Judeans who are gathered around you would be scattered, and the remnant of Judah would perish?" 16 But Gedaliah son of Ahikam said to Johanan son of Kareah, "Do not do such a thing, for you are telling a lie about Ishmael." (Jeremiah 40:13-16, NRSV)

Insurrection against Gedaliah

41:1 In the seventh month, Ishmael son of Nethaniah son of Elishama, of the royal family, one of the chief officers of the king, came with ten men to Gedaliah son of Ahikam, at Mizpah. As they ate bread together there at Mizpah, 2 Ishmael son of Nethaniah and the ten men with him got up and struck down Gedaliah son of Ahikam son of Shaphan with the sword and killed him, because the king of Babylon had appointed him governor in the land. 3 Ishmael also killed all the Judeans who were with Gedaliah at Mizpah, and the Chaldean soldiers who happened to be there. (Jeremiah 41:1-3, NRSV)

The following comments are repeated here with editing and supplement from October 23, 2007 (Tuesday in the week of the Twenty-first Sunday after Pentecost, references for the week of the Sunday closest to October 19, Year One):

We have learned in recent readings that when the Babylonians conquered Jerusalem, they gave favorable treatment to Jeremiah. He was given a choice, to go to Babylon with favored status, or to remain in the custody of Gedaliah, whom the Babylonians had appointed as governor of Judah. He chose the latter (Jer. 40:1-6), for “then Jeremiah went to Gedaliah son of Ahikam at Mizpah (hPAc4m9, mitspāh) and stayed with him among the people who were left in the land” (v. 6). According to Leo G. Perdue, revised by Robert R. Wilson, “Gedaliah [was] the son of the same Ahikam who set Jeremiah free at the conclusion of the trial in ch. 26, and the grandson of Shaphan, Josiah’s royal secretary (2 Kings 22)” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Jer. 40:7-16). Marvin A. Sweeney says, “According to b. Gittim 57a, Nebuzaradan’s statements [i.e., the statements of the captain/chief of the guard, 40:1, cf. vv. 2-5] indicate that he converted to Judaism in remorse for the suffering he caused” (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, on Jer. 40:6). According to Joel F. Drinkard, Jr., “Mizpah ( [which in] Heb. [means] ‘watchtower’) [is] the name of at least five places in Palestine. . . . Mizpah of Benjamin [was] a town on the border of Judah and Israel. . . . After the fall of Jerusalem at the Exile (587 B.C.), Mizpah became the Babylonian provincial capital” (Harper’s Bible Dictionary, rev. ed., 1996, s.v. Mizpah, no. 5). Drinkard adds that “this Mizpah has been identified with two modern sites, Nebi Samwil, about five miles north of Jerusalem, and Tell en-Nasbeh, about eight miles north of Jerusalem.” Of the latter, he says, “although no conclusive evidence proves that [it] is Mizpah, the site does fit well with the biblical and occupational history of Mizpeh” (ibid.).

It turns out that Judean leaders of the “forces in the open country,” not taken to Babylon in exile, remain rebellious. “When all the leaders of the forces in the open country and their troops heard that the king of Babylon had appointed Gedaliah son of Ahikam governor in the land, and had committed to him men, women, and children, those of the poorest of the land who had not been taken into exile to Babylon, they went to Gedaliah at Mizpah–Ishmael son of Nethaniah, Johanan son of Kareah, Seraiah son of Tanhumeth, the sons of Ephai the Netophathite, Jezaniah son of the Maacathite, they and their troops” (vv. 7-8). According to Sweeney, “Ishmael son of Nethaniah son of Elishama is identified as a member of the royal family in 41:1. His grandfather may have been Jehoiakim’s scribe (36:12)” (op. cit., on 40:8). “Johanan and Jonathan the sons of Kareah,” Sweeney adds, “are otherwise unknown” (ibid.). But he finds the next name significant.

The name Jezaniah son of the Maacathite may employ an ethnic or place name in reference to his father (Maacah is a small state in the northern Golan; see Josh. 13:11, 13; 2 Sam. 10:6, 8; 1 Chron. 19:7). If so, he could be identified with Jezaniah son of Hoshaiah in Jer. 42:1. The use of the gentilic name could be an attempt to call the reader’s attention to the succession narrative (2 Sam. chs. 9-20) in which Maacah first opposed David, and then submitted to his rule (2 Sam. 10:19). The following narrative appears to contrast Ishmael’s defeat in Benjaminite territory with David’s victories in the same region. (ibid.)

Gedaliah attempts to reassure these people. “Gedaliah son of Ahikam son of Shaphan swore to them and their troops, saying, ‘Do not be afraid to serve the Chaldeans. Stay in the land and serve the king of Babylon, and it shall go well with you’ ” (Jer. 40:9). He sets up a kind of territorial government–subject, of course, to the Babylonians–in Mizpeh. Perdue and Wilson say, “How long Gedaliah’s government lasted is unclear, although certainly no longer than 582 BCE” (op. cit., on Jer. 40:7-16). Gedaliah says, “As for me, I am staying at Mizpah to represent you before the Chaldeans who come to us; but as for you, gather wine and summer fruits and oil, and store them in your vessels, and live in the towns that you have taken over” (v. 10). According to Mark E. Biddle, “Gedaliah assured his countrymen that he would represent them before the Babylonians (Chaldeans) and urged them to return to their fields and cities. Benjamin seems to have been largely spared (32:1-8), and Mizpah (probably Tell on-Nasbeh, 12 km [7 mi] north of Jerusalem) became the provincial capital” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Jer. 40:7-12). He agrees with Drinkard (cited above) on the location of Mizpeh.. Some scattered Judeans, hearing of a semblance of order, return. “Likewise, when all the Judeans who were in Moab and among the Ammonites and in Edom and in other lands heard that the king of Babylon had left a remnant in Judah and had appointed Gedaliah son of Ahikam son of Shaphan as governor over them, then all the Judeans returned from all the places to which they had been scattered and came to the land of Judah, to Gedaliah at Mizpah; and they gathered wine and summer fruits in great abundance” (vv. 11-12). It would appear that some sort of ordered peaceful living would be possible. Biddle says, “at first, Jeremiah’s (and Gedaliah’s) assurance that life in the land could and would go on seemed confirmed” (ibid.). But as we shall see, it was not to be. Hard-line nationalists find this intolerable, and their opposition will soon lead to the assassination of Gedaliah (41:2) and his supporters (v. 3).

“Now,” we are told, “Johanan son of Kareah and all the leaders of the forces in the open country came to Gedaliah at Mizpah and said to him, ‘Are you at all aware that Baalis king of the Ammonites has sent Ishmael son of Nethaniah to take your life?’ But Gedaliah son of Ahikam would not believe them” (40:13-14). Sweeny says, “Johanan (v. 8) informed Gedaliah of Ishmael’s intent to assassinate him, but the warning was rebuffed. The Ammonites apparently saw an opportunity to take control of Judah now that it was virtually powerless” (op. cit., on vv. 13-16). Biddle says, “with encouragement from Baalis of Ammon (for political reasons), Ishmael, a member of the royal family (as Ge3daliah was not), plotted Gedaliah’s assassination” (op. cit., on 40:13-41:3). Johanan persists. “Then Johanan son of Kareah spoke secretly to Gedaliah at Mizpah, ‘Please let me go and kill Ishmael son of Nethaniah, and no one else will know. Why should he take your life, so that all the Judeans who are gathered around you would be scattered, and the remnant of Judah would perish?’ But Gedaliah son of Ahikam said to Johanan son of Kareah, ‘Do not do such a thing, for you are telling a lie about Ishmael’ ” (vv. 15-16). Sweeney also notes that Ishmael was of the royal family, and

would likely cooperate with Baalis out of his own ambitions to claim the Davidic throne based on his own royal descent (cf. Rashi, Radak, Abravanel). The Ammonites did support David much earlier, during Absalom’s revolt (see 2 Sam. 17:27-29). Perhaps this was another attempt to support the House of David, as Gedaliah was not of royal blood. Baalis is probably to be identified with ‘ba‘alyasha‘,’ whose name is found on a 6^th -century Ammonite seal impression. (ibid., on v. 14)

In spite of Gedaliah’s disbelief, the warning proves to be true. “In the seventh month [Tishri, Sept.-Oct.], Ishmael son of Nethaniah son of Elishama, of the royal family, one of the chief officers of the king, came with ten men to Gedaliah son of Ahikam, at Mizpah.” (41:1a). We are told that “As they ate bread together there at Mizpah, Ishmael son of Nethaniah and the ten men with him got up and struck down Gedaliah son of Ahikam son of Shaphan with the sword and killed him, because the king of Babylon had appointed him governor in the land” (vv. 1b, 2). According to Biddle, “ancient rules of hospitality and table fellowship bound host and guest to faithfulness toward one another. Ishmael’s act was therefore particularly heinous” (op. cit., on Jer. 41:1 [&2]). And as Ishmael’s violence continues, it is apparent that he wishes to destroy any would be challengers. We are told that he “also killed all the Judeans who were with Gedaliah at Mizpah, and the Chaldean soldiers who happened to be there” (v. 3). Sweeney says, “It seems unlikely that Ishmael intended to revolt against Babylonia, but the killing of Babylonian soldiers together with Gedaliah indicates that perhaps the situation got out of control” (op. cit. on 41:2-3). There is more of that to come in the alternative reading for tomorrow. The future of Judah does not lie within this anarchic situation. According to Sweeney,

The third of Tishri is now observed as the Fast of Gedaliah, immediately following the two days of Rosh Ha-Shanah, and it is likely that this fast is ‘the fast of the seventh month’ mentioned in Zech. 8:19. The assassination of Gedaliah was commemorated since it represented the end of even limited Judean autonomy in the land, and is the culmination of the events associated with the destruction of the Temple and the exile. (ibid., on v. 1)

1 Corinthians 15:41-50

41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; indeed, star differs from star in glory.

42 So it is with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable. 43 It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 Thus it is written, "The first man, Adam, became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 But it is not the spiritual that is first, but the physical, and then the spiritual. 47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so are those who are of the dust; and as is the man of heaven, so are those who are of heaven. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we will also bear the image of the man of heaven.

50 What I am saying, brothers and sisters, is this: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. (1 Corinthians 15:41-50, NRSV)

On March 27, 2008 (Thursday of Easter Week, Year Two), comments were repeated from October 23, 2007 (Tuesday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 19, Year One), when comments were repeated from April 20, 2006 (Thursday of Easter Week, Year Two), when they were repeated from October 18, 2005 (Tuesday of the week of the Sunday closest to October 19, Year One). They are repeated again here with editing and supplement:

In yesterday’s reading, Paul explained that one sows seed (1 Cor. 15:37), “but God gives it a body as he has chosen” (v. 38); he also referred to the different “glories” of different heavenly bodies (vv. 40-41). “There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; indeed, star differs from star in glory” (v. 41). According to Richard A. Horsley, Paul “uses the analogy of a seed to establish the body as the principle of continuity from historical to resurrection life, and the analogy of heavenly bodies to imagine different kinds of bodies” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on 1 Cor. 15:35-41). On the latter, Victor Paul Furnish refers to Genesis 1:14-18 (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on 1 Cor. 15:40-41).

But he continues with the analogy of the seed. Before resurrection, the body is perishable:“So it is with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable” (v. 42). “It is sown in dishonor,” says Paul, “it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power” (v. 43). Furnish refers here to Philippians 3:21 (ibid., on v. 43). “It [i.e., still the ‘seed,’ standing for the Christian’s body] is sown a physical body (sw:ma yucikovn, sōma psychikon), it is raised a spiritual body (sw:ma pneumatikovn, sōma pneumatikon). If there is a physical body (sw:ma yucikovn, sōma psychikon), there is also a spiritual ([sw:ma] yucikovn, [sōma] psychikon) body [body is understood]” (v. 44). So, before resurrection, the body is perishable (1 Cor. 15:42), “sown in dishonor,” “in weakness” (v. 43), physical (v. 44). After resurrection, the body is imperishable (v. 42), “raised in glory,” “in power” (v. 43), “raised a spiritual body” (v. 44). According to Horsley, “Paul now uses antitheses that the Corinthians use for body versus soul or for contrasting levels of spiritual status to characterize the historical and resurrection bodies, respectively. That is, he characterizes the embodied resurrection life in the same terms they use with regard to the immortality of their souls and their exalted spiritual status” (op. cit., on vv. 42-49). It is “unlikely,” says Ben Witherington III,

that Paul means by sōma pneumatikon [spiritual body] (v. 44) a “body made up of spirit.” That would be a non sequitur, since Paul elsewhere assumes that spirit is immaterial. He means, rather, that the resurrection body will be animated and empowered by the Spirit, just as the present physical body (the sōma psychikon) is animated and empowered by a physical life principle or force, which the creation story says God breathed into human beings. So the psychē that Adam was animated by (v. 45) is the physical life principle, not a “soul,” as the word is so often translated. Psychē is decidedly this-worldly, of the earth. It is not an immaterial soul or spirit. (Ben Witherington III, Conflict & Community in Corinth, 1994, pp. 308-309 on 1 Cor. 15:42-44)

He does not add, as he might have done, that Genesis 2:7 says that “the man became a hy0AHa wp,n@ (nefeš chayyāh, “living being’; LXX yuch;n zw:san), the term which is used of animals in Genesis 1:20.

The contrast continues. “Thus it is written,” says Paul, “ ‘The first man, Adam, became a living being’; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit” (v. 45, citing, the bold print, from Gen. 2:7). For “life-giving spirit” (pneu:ma zw/opoiou:n, pneuma zō(i)opoioun), compare John 6:63; 2 Corinthians 3:6, 17. “Life-giving spirit,” says Furnish, is “in distinction from the first Adam, who was simply alive; see also v. 22” (op. cit., on v. 45). “But it is not the spiritual (to; pneumatikovn, to pneumatikon) that is first, but the physical (to; yukikovn, to psykikon), and then the spiritual (to; pneumatikovn, to pneumatikon)” (v. 46). “The first man,” continues Paul, “was from the earth (ejk gh:V, ek gēs), a man of dust (coi&kovV, choïkos), the second man is from heaven ( ejx oujranou:, ex ouranou). As was the man of dust (coi&kovV, choïkos, i.e. Adam), so are those who are of the dust (oiJ coi&koiv, hoi choïkoi); and as is the man of heaven ( oJ ejpouravnioV, ho epouranios), so are those who are of heaven (oiJ ejpouravnioi, hoi epouranioi)” (vv. 47-48). In concluding this stage of the argument, Paul says “Just as we have borne the image (hJ eijkw:n, hē eikōn) of the man of dust ( oJ coi&kovV, ho choïkos), we will also bear the image (hJ eijkw:n, hē eikōn) of the man of heaven ( oJ ejpouravnioV, ho epouranios)” (v. 49). According to Horsley, “Paul’s pointed insistence that the spiritual . . . man of heaven is second, while Adam, the physical (lit. ‘soul-like’) . . .  man . . . from the earth was the first man , with quotation of Gen. 2:7, suggests that he is borrowing and reversing a Corinthian interpretation of Gen. 1:26-27 as the origin of the prototype (or perhaps ‘image’) of the ‘spiritual’ person and Gen. 2:7 as the origin of the ‘physical/soul-like’ person” (op. cit., on vv. 45-49).

The present reading concludes by beginning the next paragraph. But the sentence draws a conclusion from the preceding and prepares for the “mystery” (v. 51). But that is tomorrow’s reading. “What I am saying, brothers and sisters,” says Paul, “is this: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable” (v. 50). If this seems a little mysterious, remember what John said. “Beloved, we are God’s children now; what we will be has not yet been revealed. What we do know is this: when he is revealed, we will be like him, for we will see him as he is” (1 John 3:2).

Matthew 11:25-30

Jesus Thanks the Father for Revelations (Lk 10.21-22)

25 At that time Jesus said, "I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and the intelligent and have revealed them to infants; 26 yes, Father, for such was your gracious will. 27 All things have been handed over to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. (Matthew 11:25-27, NRSV)

Jesus’ Easy Yoke

28 "Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." (Matthew 11:28-30, NRSV)

On May 22, 2008 (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to May 18, Year Two), comments were repeated from October 23, 2007 (Tuesday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 19, Year One), when comments were based on those of October 18, 2005 (Tuesday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 19, Year One). The comments are repeated here:

Matthew’s first paragraph has a parallel in Luke, as presented in the following table:

In Matthew, the context of this thanksgiving is following Jesus’ woes pronounced against Galilean cities (Mt. 11:20-24; Lk. 10:13-15, part of yesterday’s reading). Within the larger context, the thanksgiving would relate to the general response to John the Baptist’s preaching and his own. For Luke, this passage follows immediately upon the account of the return of the Seventy who were sent out by Jesus (Lk. 10:17-20). Matthew’s phrase, “At that time” (Mt. 11:25a) relates to the time of Jesus’ witness about John and the woes (mentioned above). Luke’s phrase, “At that same hour” (Lk. 10:21a), relates directly to the return of the Seventy.

So, the introductory phrases vary, but the words quoted here from Jesus are practically identical to the words quoted in the parallel passage in Luke (Mt. 11:25-27; Lk. 10:21-22). Matthew has “no one knows the Son” and Luke has “no one knows who the son is,” but the difference is hardly substantial. Jesus thanks the “Father, Lord of heaven and earth” because, as he says, “you have hidden these things from the wise and the intelligent and have revealed them to infants” (Mt. 11:25; Lk. 10:21b). This, says Jesus was the Father’s “gracious will” (Mt. 11:26; Lk. 20:21c).

“All things,” says Jesus, “have been handed over to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son (Lk., ‘who the Son is’) except the Father, and no one knows the Father (Lk., ‘who the Father is’) except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him” (Mt. 11:27; Lk. 10:22; cf. all the quotations from John in the table above). The content of the thanksgiving is for divine revelation, knowledge of the Father, or as we might think of it, knowledge of true wisdom. J. Andrew Overman comments:

The nature of true wisdom is an important question in Matthew. Powerful and influential people form the opposition in Matthew’s Gospel. Ironically, it is the younger students without influence, training, and power who have heard and understood the message. Wisdom is hidden from ‘the wise’; see Job 12:1, 24-25; Isa. 19:11-12; Jer. 8:8-9; Prov. 3:7” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Mt. 11:25-27)

The second paragraph in the reading from Matthew has no parallel in Luke or the other Gospels. “Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens,” says Jesus, “and I will give you rest” (Mt. 11:28). He explains that in taking his yoke, we will learn from him, “for I am gentle and humble in heart,” he says, “and you will find rest for your souls” (v. 29). Reference is often made here to Sirach 51:23-27 (e.g., by Krister Stendahl, Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, 1962, reprint 1972, sec. 684i, p. 784, on Mt. 11:28-30). The Sirach (i.e. the Wisdom of Jesus Son of Sira–not Jesus of Nazareth) passage says:

By coincidence, the Sirach passage is part of an alphabetic acrostic poem (Sirach 51:13-30), which elaborates on themes from the book of Proverbs in which Lady Wisdom invites the young to come into her house and learn wisdom (e.g. Prov. 9:1-8).

According to Stendahl,

The Rabbis spoke of the ‘yoke of the Law’ as the glorious obedience to God which freed man from obligations to the world and gave ‘rest’ and ‘peace of mind’. But Jesus criticized this ‘yoke’ as heavy and wrong (e.g. [Mt.] 23:4), and presents his own teaching as an alternative halachah (i.e. legally binding statements). This halachah is characterised by his humility, his concern for the despised who did not dare to think that the yoke of the Law was for them. The yoke stands for the burden, not for the means by which loads are carried. (ibid.)

J. Andrew Overman says, “In the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible which Matthew quotes, the image of the yoke entails obedience and submission, but also political allegiance, wisdom and justice” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on vv. 28-30). Dale C. Allison, Jr., comments on the two passages together (vv. 25-30):

The whole has a Mosaic colour. The declaration about Father and Son knowing each other depends upon Ex. 33:12-13, in which Moses says that God knows him and in which Moses prays that he might know God; and the promise of rest (cf. the realized eschatology in Heb. 4:1-13) is modelled upon Ex. 33:14. Jesus moreover is like Moses in that he is ‘meek’ (Num. 12:3) full of revelation (Jewish tradition made Moses all but omniscient; cf. Jub. 1:4; Sipre Deut. Sec. 357), and has a ‘yoke’ (a word often applied to the Mosaic law). All this accords with Jesus’ status as the new Moses of the new covenant. (Dale C. Allison, Jr., The Oxford Bible Commentary, 2001, p. 860, on Mt. 11:25-30)

The promise to us, as members of Christ’s kingdom, is not that there will be no expectations or requirements, but that, all things considered, the “yoke is easy” and the “burden is light.”

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net