Ezra 3:1-13

The Altar Set Up at Jerusalem

3:1 When the seventh month came, and the Israelites were in the towns, the people gathered together in Jerusalem. 2 Then Jeshua son of Jozadak, with his fellow priests, and Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel with his kin set out to build the altar of the God of Israel, to offer burnt offerings on it, as prescribed in the law of Moses the man of God. 3 They set up the altar on its foundation, because they were in dread of the neighboring peoples, and they offered burnt offerings upon it to the LORD, morning and evening. 4 And they kept the festival of booths, as prescribed, and offered the daily burnt offerings by number according to the ordinance, as required for each day, 5 and after that the regular burnt offerings, the offerings at the new moon and at all the sacred festivals of the LORD, and the offerings of everyone who made a freewill offering to the LORD. 6 From the first day of the seventh month they began to offer burnt offerings to the LORD. But the foundation of the temple of the LORD was not yet laid. 7 So they gave money to the masons and the carpenters, and food, drink, and oil to the Sidonians and the Tyrians to bring cedar trees from Lebanon to the sea, to Joppa, according to the grant that they had from King Cyrus of Persia.

Foundation Laid for the Temple

8 In the second year after their arrival at the house of God at Jerusalem, in the second month, Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel and Jeshua son of Jozadak made a beginning, together with the rest of their people, the priests and the Levites and all who had come to Jerusalem from the captivity. They appointed the Levites, from twenty years old and upward, to have the oversight of the work on the house of the LORD. 9 And Jeshua with his sons and his kin, and Kadmiel and his sons, Binnui and Hodaviah along with the sons of Henadad, the Levites, their sons and kin, together took charge of the workers in the house of God.

10 When the builders laid the foundation of the temple of the LORD, the priests in their vestments were stationed to praise the LORD with trumpets, and the Levites, the sons of Asaph, with cymbals, according to the directions of King David of Israel; 11 and they sang responsively, praising and giving thanks to the LORD,

"For he is good,

for his steadfast love endures forever toward Israel."

And all the people responded with a great shout when they praised the LORD, because the foundation of the house of the LORD was laid. 12 But many of the priests and Levites and heads of families, old people who had seen the first house on its foundations, wept with a loud voice when they saw this house, though many shouted aloud for joy, 13 so that the people could not distinguish the sound of the joyful shout from the sound of the people's weeping, for the people shouted so loudly that the sound was heard far away. (Ezra 3:1-13, NRSV)

On October 26, 2007 (Friday in the week of the Twenty-first Sunday after Pentecost, references for the week of the Sunday closest to October 19, Year One), comments were repeated with editing and supplement from October 21, 2005 (Friday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 19, Year One); they are repeated again here with editiing and supplement:

The Book of Ezra has quoted the edict of Cyrus that allowed Judeans to return from Babylonian exile and rebuild their temple (Ezra 1:1-4). The book describes the initial preparations for the return (Ezra 1:5-11 and presents a list of the returnees (2:1-67). It is reported that the people returning from exile arrive in Jerusalem (2:68a), and “as soon as they came to the house of the LORD in Jerusalem, some of the heads of families made freewill offerings for the house of God, to erect it on its site” (v. 68b). The offerings are totaled: “According to their resources they gave to the building fund sixty-one thousand darics (Myn9OmK4r4Da, dark ^emônîm) of gold, five thousand minas (Myn9mA, mānîm) of silver, and one hundred priestly robes” (v. 69). William L. Holladay defines Myn9OmK4r4Da (dark ^emônîm) as the plural of *MKAr4Da or hmAK4r4Da (*darkām or dark ^emāh), which he defines as “drachma,” and indicates with a dagger (†) that the term occurs only in Ezra 2:69 and Nehemiah 7:69-71 in the Hebrew Bible (A concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 1971, 4^th impression, 1978, s.v. Myn9OmK4r4Da, dark ^emônîm). A “drachma” was “an ancient Greek silver coin equivalent to 6 obols,” or “any of various ancient Greek [or modern] units of weight” (Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, 1965, s.v. drachma). However, given the Persian context, the translators (NRSV, TNIV) are probably correct with “daric” (but cf. “drams” AV/KJV, and “drachmas” NJPS 1985, 1999). The Encyclopedia Britannica Online says,

The first ruler of the Achaemenid dynasty to strike coins was probably Darius I (522–486 BC), as the Greek historian Herodotus suggests. The coins of the dynasty were the daric struck from gold of very pure quality and the siglos in silver; 20 sigloi (shekels) made a daric, which weighed 8.4 grams. The types of both coins were the same: obverse, the Persian king in a kneeling position holding a bow in his left hand and a spear in his right; reverse, only a rough irregular incuse caused in the striking. These roughly oval pieces were uninscribed and remained in issue unaltered in type until the fall of the empire. The issue of gold was the royal prerogative, but the conquered Greek and other cities and states were allowed to issue silver and copper, while a number of Persian satraps struck silver in their own names, producing some of the earliest and finest coin portraits. At the fall of the empire, various satraps struck silver coins of their own. (The Encyclopedia Britannica Online, “Coins of Asia,” on the Internet at http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/151554/daric, accessed Oct. 22, 2009)

If it is correct that Darius I (522-481 B.C.) first issued such coins, one may wonder how the returning Judeans obtained 61,000 of them in 538 B.C., “the first year of Cyrus” (559-530 B.C.). David J. A. Clines says, “This reference to darics at a time earlier than Darius is anachronistic and suggests a composition or revision of this text later than the time it purports to describe. The total weight of gold in 61,000 darics (41,000 in Neh. 7:70-72) is 1,133 pounds” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Ezra 2:69). Tamara Cohn Eskenazi ignores the anachronism–if that it is–but rather, she is content to say, “The precise monetary value of this contribution to the Temple is uncertain because the value of the daric and the mina fluctuated. Nevertheless, the passage suggests that the community invested a great deal in restoring its Temple” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Ezra 2:69). “The priestly robes,” she adds, “are singled out as expensive, specialized garments for official service” (ibid.). Chapter 2 concludes with the report that the returning Judeans settled in their respective places. “The priests, the Levites, and some of the people lived in Jerusalem and its vicinity; and the singers, the gatekeepers, and the temple servants lived in their towns, and all Israel in their towns” (v. 70). “Ezra-Nehemiah,” says Eskenazi, “emphasizes continuity, suggesting a return to preexilic settlements. In reality, however, the Persian province of Yehud [i.e., ‘Judah’] is considerably smaller than the earlier kingdom of Judah” (ibid., on v. 70).

Today’s reading begins in “the seventh month [i.e., Tishri].” “When the seventh month came,” says the narrator, “and the Israelites were in the towns, the people gathered together in Jerusalem” (Ezra 3:1). The settling of the people as described (2:70; 3:1) must have taken some time, perhaps weeks, or even months. For Hindy Najman, the significance is more than the mere passing of time. She says, “The returnees are preparing to celebrate the festival of Booths in Tishri, the seventh month. According to 2 Chron. 7:8, the dedication of Solomon’s Temple took place during the festival of Tabernacles. Ezra deliberately invokes preexilic Temple practice in order to authorize the second Temple as an authentic restoration of the first Temple” (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, on Ezra 3:1-7).

The narrator continues: “Then Jeshua son of Jozadak, with his fellow priests, and Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel with his kin set out to build the altar of the God of Israel, to offer burnt offerings on it, as prescribed in the law of Moses the man of God” (3:2). This appears to be a continuation of work begun under Sheshbazzar (1:8-10; 5:14-16). According to Najman,

The building begins under the governorship of Sheshbazzar (1:8-14 [sic! apparently v. 10 is meant]; 5:14-16). After an interruption, the building resumes under the governorship of Zerubbabel and the priestly instruction of Jeshua. Som scholars identify Zerubbabel with Sheshbazzar because both are credited with building the Second Temple. However, it seems most likely that Sheshbazzar initiated the rebuilding and that Zerubbabel completed it. (ibid., on 3:1-7)

Jeshua (f1Uwye, yēšû^a‘ ) was “a priest and clan leader who, along with Zerubbabel, led the return of a group of exiles from the Babylonian captivity (ca. 521 B.C.; Ezra 2:2; Neh. 7:7). . . . He is referred to as the high priest by Haggai (1:1) and Zechariah (6:11) and was the father of Joiakim who probably succeeded him as high priest (Neh. 12:10-12)” (Harper’s Bible Dictionary, rev. ed., 1996, s.v. Jeshua no. 3). His name means “Yahweh is salvation,” and is “the Aramaic form of Joshua” (ibid.). According to Peter R. Ackroyd, Zerubbabel was “a descendant of the Davidic family,” and Ackroyd adds,

The genealogies differ: 1 Chron. 3:19 gives Pedaiah, a younger son of Jehoiachin, as his father; Hag. 1:1 and Ezra 3:2 (cf. Matt. 1:12; Luke 3:37) give Shealtiel, the eldest son. Zerubbabel appears with Joshua (Jeshua) the high priest as the recipient of Haggai’s message (Hag. 1:1; 2:1) to rebuild the Temple. In Hag. 2:20-23 he is to receive royal status as “servant” and “signet ring,” executive officer of God. In Zechariah, he is named only in 4:6b-10a, inserted in the vision of the golden lampstand; he alone is the initiator and completer of the restored Temple, not by human power but by divine ‘spirit. The origin of this passage is uncertain; text and interpretation are difficult. Zech. 2:10 and 6:12 (‘the Branch,’ cf. Jer. 23:5) are generally believed to indicate Zerubbabel. Later reinterpretation may have resulted in his name being removed, perhaps when priestly rulers had superseded governors. These passages also remain problematic. (Harper’s Bible Dictionary, rev. ed., 1996, s.v. Zerubbabel)

I have speculated that during a period of Persian weakness following the death of Cyrus (530 B.C.), when there were revolts throughout the Persian Empire, Judeans hoping for a restoration of the Davidic dynasty focused these hopes in Zerubbabel; but when Darius I succeeded Cambyses (522 B.C.), and put down the revolts with an iron hand, the Judean hopes centered in Zerubbabel faded. That would explain the omission of his name in the Zechariah texts mentioned by Ackroyd (above). In any event, after the restoration, Judah was not a sovereign state, but remained subject to Persia. Since they were allowed, even encouraged, to practice their own religion, the governance of Judah as a province within the Persian Empire was through the priests, and lasted to the time of the Maccabean revolt against the Hellenistic Syrians (Seleucids).

Sheshbazzar is “the ‘prince of Judah’ (Ezra 1:8, 11; 5:14, 16, RSV) to whom Cyrus [538 B.C.) entrusted the ‘gold and silver vessels’ of the Temple to be restored to Jerusalem. The name derives from Babylonian Šamaš- or Sîn-ab-utşur and means ‘O Shamash/Sîn preserve the father’ (the versions allow for either). Identifications with Zerubbabel (Ezra 3:2) are circumstantial and thus questionable. Sheshbazzar may be identical with Shenazzar, a son of Jeconiah (1 Chron. 3:18)” (Harper’s Bible Dictionary, rev. ed., 1996, s.v. Sheshbazzar).

Pardon the parenthetical aside. The narrative in Ezra continues. “They [i.e., Jeshua and Zerubbabel, and their people] set up the altar on its foundation, because they were in dread of the neighboring peoples, and they offered burnt offerings upon it to the LORD, morning and evening” (Ezra 3:3). “On its foundation,” says Clines, means “on the foundation of the old altar still remaining” (op. cit., on v. 3). He adds, “Continuity of tradition is deemed important for the legitimacy of the worship” (ibid.). “In later midrashic traditions,” says Najman, “the Rabbis point out that the altar was prioritized, not only in Ezra, but when the Israelites first entered the land in Josh. 8:31 (Midr. Ha-gadol, Yitro [Exod.] 20:21). Ezra-Nehemiah repeatedly alludes to Joshua’s conquest in order to authorize the returnees’ claim to the land” (op. cit., on v. 3). “The reestablishment of worship is the priority in the restoration of the state,” says Clines, “as a means of warding off danger from the neighboring peoples, lit. ‘the peoples of the lands,’ such as Edomites and Ammonites. Cf. the term people of the land for the inhabitants of Palestine proper ([his] note on 4:4)” (op. cit., on v. 3). Najman says, “The returnees are intimidated by the hostile behavior of the local peoples, and are offering sacrifice to God in order to appeal for divine protection. This conflict between the returnees and the local people, many of whom were likely Judeans who were not exiled to “Babylonia, is a major them of the book. 1 Esdras 5:50, in contrast, mentions that some of the local peoples joined Ezra in the rededication” (loc. cit.). She apparently means “joined Jeshua and Zerubbabel” (cf. 1 Esdras 5:48), not Ezra, who came from Babylon to Jerusalem during the reign of Artaxerxes (Ezra 7:1-6), whether Araxerxes I (465-424 B.C.) or Artaxerxes II (405-359).

“And they kept the festival of booths as prescribed,” says the narrator, “and offered the daily burnt offerings by number according to the ordinance, as required for each day” (v. 4). According to Clines, “The festival of booths (Tabernacles) was held from the fifteenth to the twenty-second of the seventh month (Lev. 23:33-36). The daily burnt offerings are detailed in Num. 29:12-38, totaling in the week 71 bulls, 15 rams, 105 lambs, and 7 goats” (op. cit., on v. 4). Furthermore, we are told, “after that [they offered] the regular burnt offerings, the offerings at the new moon and at all the sacred festivals of the LORD, and the offerings of everyone who made a freewill offering to the LORD” (Ezra 3:5). “Throughout the year,” says Clines, “sacrifices would be offered: the public regular burnt offerings daily, the new moon offerings monthly, the offerings at sacred festivals seasonally, and the private freewill offerings irregularly. The sacred festivals are enumerated in Lev. 23” (ibid. on v.5). And the narrator briefly summarizes: “From the first day of the seventh month they began to offer burnt offerings to the LORD” (v. 6a).

But then the narrator focuses on the temple itself. “But the foundation of the temple of the LORD was not yet laid” (v. 6b). For the words “the foundation of the temple . . . was not yet laid,” Clines says “better ‘work had not yet started on the temple rebuilding.’ Many of the foundations must have survived from the ruins of the First Temple. The point is that sacrificial worship was resumed long before the temple building itself was repaired” (ibid., on v. 6). “So they gave money (Js,K,, kesef) to the masons and the carpenters (Myw9rAHA, chārāšîm), and food, drink, and oil to the Sidonians and the Tyrians to bring cedar trees from Lebanon to the sea, to Joppa, according to the grant that they had from King Cyrus of Persia” (v. 7). “Note,” says Najman, “the echoing of Solomon’s practices: 1 Kings 5:15-32; 2 Chron. 2:2-4:22” (op. cit., on v. 7). According to Clines, “The account of the building of the Second Temple is intended to remind readers of the building of Solomon’s temple (2 Chr. 3; cf. 12 Chr. 22:2-4), for the narrator sees the Second Temple as essentially a rebuilding and continuation of the First Temple” (op. cit., on v. 7). “Money,” he adds, is “probably an anachronistic translation, for coins were not yet in common use. The Heb. [Js,K,, kesef] is lit. ‘silver,’ which would have been weighed out as wages” (ibid.). For the word Myw9rAHA (chārāšîm), Clines says, “The English word [carpenters] is too specific; the Hebrew is lit. ‘cutters,’ i.e., workers in wood, metal, and stone (cf. 1 Chr. 22:15). Holladay defines the word as a “craftsman of any sort: stoneworker Ex. 28:11; carpenter 2 Kgs 12:12; metalworker, armorer 1 Sam. 13:19” (A concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 1971, 4^th impression, 1978, s.v. wrAHA, chārāš). Other details of the rebuilding as reported here also remind us of Solomon’s construction of the first temple.

The narrator continues: “In the second year after their arrival at the house of God at Jerusalem, in the second month, Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel and Jeshua son of Jozadak made a beginning, together with the rest of their people, the priests and the Levites and all who had come to Jerusalem from the captivity. They appointed the Levites, from twenty years old and upward, to have the oversight of the work on the house of the LORD” (v. 8). The year, according to Clines, would be 537 BCE (ibid., on v. 8). “In the second month,” would be “Ziv, or Iyyar (April-May),” according to Clines, who adds, “In the same month Solomon too began work on his temple (1 Kings 6:1; 2 Chr. 3:2); it was a suitable season for building work, after the spring rains and the early harvest of flax and barley” (ibid., on v. 8). Clines also notes the reference to “all who had come . . . from captivity” as an indication that “those who had not been in exile in Babylonia but had remained in the land seem to be studiously ignored by the author” (ibid.). Najman notes that the “age of twenty” limitation “also appears in the divisions of the Levites in 1 Chron. 23:24, 27). The author takes note of leadership. “And Jeshua with his sons and his kin, and Kadmiel and his sons, Binnui and Hodaviah along with the sons of Henadad, the Levites, their sons and kin, together took charge of the workers in the house of God” (v. 9). “In accordance with his custom,” says Clines, “the author lingers over the names and functions of the Levites, creating the impression that he himself was a Levite” (op. cit., on v. 9). “This Jeshua,” he adds, “is a Levite, not the high priest (v. 2)” (ibid.).

One would expect the “second year” (v. 8) to be the second year of Cyrus, that is 537 or 536 B.C., but Haggai puts this activity, or some of it, in 520 B.C. (the “second year of King Darius, in the seventh month,” Haggai 2:1). Perhaps there was an early abortive attempt to rebuild the temple, but failure to follow through immediately, which occasioned Haggai’s criticism. “Why [the meagre harvest], says the LORD of hosts. Because my house lies in ruins, while all of you hurry off to your own houses” (Hag. 1:9). For the (resumed?) attempt described in Ezra, Zerubbabel and Jeshua are named as leaders “together with the rest of their people, the priests and the Levites and all who had come to Jerusalem from the captivity” (Ezra 1:8a). There clearly was a good beginning, but also delays and setbacks. The rebuilt temple in the early post-exilic period was a far cry from the magnificent structure associated with Herod’s repairs and additions

“When the builders laid the foundation of the temple of the LORD, the priests in their vestments were stationed to praise the LORD with trumpets, and the Levites, the sons of Asaph, with cymbals, according to the directions of King David of Israel” (v. 10). This text attributes the laying of the foundation to those working under the leadership of Jeshua and Zerubbabel (3:8; cf. 3:2). But later we are told that “Sheshbazzar came and laid the foundations of the house of God in Jerusalem” (5:16a). According to Clines,

Foundations, or rather the platform on which the temple was built [is meant]; the term is different from that in 3:10. In all the other evidence it is Zerubbabel, not Sheshbazzar, who is said to have begun the rebuilding (3:2; 4:3; 5:2; Hag. 1:14; Zech. 4:9). Perhaps it was the commissioner Sheshbazzar who was named in the official Persian correspondence and not the governor Zerubbabel. (op. cit., on 5:16)

As the foundation was laid, we are told, “they [i.e. the priests, Levites, and sons of Asaph, v. 10] sang responsively, praising and giving thanks to the LORD,

‘For he is good,

for his steadfast love endures forever toward Israel.’ (v. 11a)

The response is similar to that of Psalm 136, the second line of each of the twenty-six verses. But the people have a response of their own, for they “responded with a great shout when they praised the LORD, because the foundation of the house of the LORD was laid” (v. 11b). But, we are told, “ many of the priests and Levites and heads of families, old people who had seen the first house on its foundations, wept with a loud voice when they saw this house” (v. 12a). According to Eskenazi, “postexilic sources consistently contrast the splendor of Solomon’s Temple with the less glorious, postexilic Second Temple. Only in the first century BCE would Herod renovate extensively the Second Temple” (op. cit., on Ezra 3:12). Even so “many shouted aloud for joy, so that the people could not distinguish the sound of the joyful shout from the sound of the people's weeping, for the people shouted so loudly that the sound was heard far away” (vv. 12b, 13).

or Jeremiah 43:1-13 (alternative reading, Presbyterian and Lutheran traditions)

In Egypt Jeremiah Warns of Judgment

43:1 When Jeremiah finished speaking to all the people all these words of the LORD their God, with which the LORD their God had sent him to them, 2 Azariah son of Hoshaiah and Johanan son of Kareah and all the other insolent men said to Jeremiah, "You are telling a lie. The LORD our God did not send you to say, 'Do not go to Egypt to settle there'; 3 but Baruch son of Neriah is inciting you against us, to hand us over to the Chaldeans, in order that they may kill us or take us into exile in Babylon." 4 So Johanan son of Kareah and all the commanders of the forces and all the people did not obey the voice of the LORD, to stay in the land of Judah. 5 But Johanan son of Kareah and all the commanders of the forces took all the remnant of Judah who had returned to settle in the land of Judah from all the nations to which they had been driven– 6 the men, the women, the children, the princesses, and everyone whom Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard had left with Gedaliah son of Ahikam son of Shaphan; also the prophet Jeremiah and Baruch son of Neriah. 7 And they came into the land of Egypt, for they did not obey the voice of the LORD. And they arrived at Tahpanhes.

8 Then the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah in Tahpanhes: 9 Take some large stones in your hands, and bury them in the clay pavement that is at the entrance to Pharaoh's palace in Tahpanhes. Let the Judeans see you do it, 10 and say to them, Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: I am going to send and take my servant King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon, and he will set his throne above these stones that I have buried, and he will spread his royal canopy over them. 11 He shall come and ravage the land of Egypt, giving

those who are destined for pestilence, to pestilence,

and those who are destined for captivity, to captivity,

and those who are destined for the sword, to the sword.

12 He shall kindle a fire in the temples of the gods of Egypt; and he shall burn them and carry them away captive; and he shall pick clean the land of Egypt, as a shepherd picks his cloak clean of vermin; and he shall depart from there safely. 13 He shall break the obelisks of Heliopolis, which is in the land of Egypt; and the temples of the gods of Egypt he shall burn with fire. (Jeremiah 43:1-13, NRSV)

The following comments are repeated here with some editing from October 26, 2007 (Friday in the week of the Twenty-first Sunday after Pentecost, references for the week of the Sunday closest to October 19, Year One):

In moving from the reading in Ezra to the alternative reading of the Presbyterian and Lutheran traditions, we move back in time to the immediate aftermath of the destruction of Jerusalem. In yesterday’s alternative reading, we saw that Jeremiah responded to Johanan and his group with instructions from the LORD that they should remain in the land of Judah and definitely not go to Egypt. If they are determined to go anyway, they were told, “Just as my [God’s] anger and my wrath were poured out on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so my wrath will be poured out on you when you go to Egypt” (Jer. 42:18). But in today’s reading we learn that, as Jeremiah anticipated (42:21), Johanan and his group will refuse to heed the LORD’s warning to them through Jeremiah. “You are telling a lie,” they say. “The LORD our God did not send you to say, ‘Do not go to Egypt to settle there’; but Baruch son of Neriah is inciting you against us, to hand us over to the Chaldeans, in order that they may kill us or take us into exile in Babylon” (Jer. 43:2b-3). Their disobedience is reiterated: “So Johanan son of Kareah and all the commanders of the forces and all the people did not obey the voice of the LORD, to stay in the land of Judah” (v. 4). Rather than obeying the LORD, Johanan and his commanders take “all the remnant of Judah who had returned to settle in the land of Judah from all the nations to which they had been driven–the men, the women, the children, the princesses, and everyone whom Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard had left with Gedaliah son of Ahikam son of Shaphan; also the prophet Jeremiah and Baruch son of Neriah” (vv. 5-6). According to Mark E. Biddle, “These verses [vv. 5, 6] give the impression that all Judeans not taken into exile in Babylon fled with Johanan to Egypt, and Judah was left unpopulated. Other traditions also make this false assumption to emphasize the degree of the disaster that befell Judah” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Jer. 43:5-6).

And so, taking all of these, “we are told, “they came into the land of Egypt, for they did not obey the voice of the LORD. And they arrived at Tahpanese” (v. 7). So Jeremiah and Baruch are reluctantly taken to Egypt, where Jeremiah’s prophetic activity continues. “Then,” we are told, “the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah in Tahpanhes” (v. 8): “Take some large stones in your hands, and bury them in the clay pavement that is at the entrance to Pharaoh's palace in Tahpanhes” (v. 9a). Jeremiah is to let the Judeans see him do this (v. 9b), “and say to them, Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: I am going to send and take my servant King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon, and he will set his throne above these stones that I have buried, and he will spread his royal canopy over them” (v. 10). The word of the LORD continues: Nebuchadrezzar will “come and ravage the land of Egypt, giving

those who are destined for pestilence, to pestilence,

and those who are destined for captivity, to captivity,

and those who are destined for the sword, to the sword. (v. 11)

Furthermore, “He shall kindle a fire in the temples of the gods of Egypt; and he shall burn them and carry them away captive; and he shall pick clean the land of Egypt, as a shepherd picks his cloak clean of vermin; and he shall depart from there safely. He shall break the obelisks of Heliopolis, which is in the land of Egypt; and the temples of the gods of Egypt he shall burn with fire” (vv. 12-13). According to Biddle, “This symbolic act and accompanying oracle is intended to show that Egypt is no safe refuge from Nebuchadrezzar (‘my servant,’ 25:9; 27:6)” (op. cit., on vv. 8-13). Leo G. Perdue, revised by Robert R. Wilson, says,

Heliopolis, also called On (Egyptian, ‘city of the pillar’; see Gen. 41:45), is modern Tell Hisn and Matariyeh, seven miles northeast of downtown Cairo. It was the cultic center for the worship of the sun god Re and well known for its obelisks: four-sided, freestanding granite pillars with pyramidal tops. According to the oracle, the Jewish refugees will not escape their dreaded foe. Nebuchadrezzar did invade Egypt in 568/7 BCE and fought Pharaoh Amasis, though the outcome of the battle is not known. However, Babylonia did not conquer Egypt.

1 Corinthians 16:10-24

Timothy and Apollos

10 If Timothy comes, see that he has nothing to fear among you, for he is doing the work of the Lord just as I am; 11 therefore let no one despise him. Send him on his way in peace, so that he may come to me; for I am expecting him with the brothers.

12 Now concerning our brother Apollos, I strongly urged him to visit you with the other brothers, but he was not at all willing to come now. He will come when he has the opportunity. (1 Corinthians 16:10-12, NRSV)

Final Greetings

13 Keep alert, stand firm in your faith, be courageous, be strong. 14 Let all that you do be done in love.

15 Now, brothers and sisters, you know that members of the household of Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia, and they have devoted themselves to the service of the saints; 16 I urge you to put yourselves at the service of such people, and of everyone who works and toils with them. 17 I rejoice at the coming of Stephanas and Fortunatus and Achaicus, because they have made up for your absence; 18 for they refreshed my spirit as well as yours. So give recognition to such persons.

19 The churches of Asia send greetings. Aquila and Prisca, together with the church in their house, greet you warmly in the Lord. 20 All the brothers and sisters send greetings. Greet one another with a holy kiss.

21 I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand. 22 Let anyone be accursed who has no love for the Lord. Our Lord, come! 23 The grace of the Lord Jesus be with you. 24 My love be with all of you in Christ Jesus. (1 Corinthians 16:13-24, NRSV)

On October 26, 2007 (Friday in the week of the Twenty-first Sunday after Pentecost, references for the week of the Sunday closest to October 19, Year One), comments were repeated with editing and supplement from October 21, 2005 (Friday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 19, Year One); they are repeated again here with editing and supplement:

In our reading for Wednesday of this week (Oct. 21, 2009), 1 Corinthians 15:51-58, we concluded the body of Paul’s letter. He does take up one more concern, introduced by “now concerning (peri; dev, peri de) the collection for the saints” (1 Cor. 16:1). But yesterday’s reading moved on to Paul’s personal plans (16:5-9), which brings us to today’s reading with remarks about Paul’s companions and some final admonitions. “If ( =Ea;n, Ean) Timothy comes ( e[lqh/, elthē, aorist subjunctive verb),” says Paul, “see that he has nothing to fear among you, for he is doing the work of the Lord just as I am; therefore let no one despise him” vv. 10, 11a). For “If Timothy comes,” Victor Paul Furnish suggests “probably ‘whenever Timothy arrives,’ since he has been sent; see 4:17” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on 1 Cor. 16:10). The construction–third class conditional sentence ( ejavn, ean, with a subjunctive mood verb) implies possibility, not certainty–perhaps indicated by Furnish with “whenever”–but, as he points out, Timothy is definitely coming. The Corinthians are instructed to “send him on his way (propevmyate, propempsate, aorist imperative verb) in peace, so that he may come to me; for I am expecting him with the brothers” (v. 11b). Paul asks the Corinthians to give Timothy the money and supplies needed for the journey. The verb translated “send [him] on his way” means here “to assist someone in making a journey, send on one’s way with food, money, by arranging for companions, means of travel, etc.” (Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich [BDAG], A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3^rd ed., 2000, s.v. propevmpw, propempō ). “Whether the brothers are with Timothy or Paul is unclear,” says Furnish. “If the latter, they are perhaps the three named in v. 17” (op. cit., on v. 11).

With one more “now concerning” (peri; dev, peri de), Paul refers to “our brother Apollos,” saying “I strongly urged him to visit you with the other brothers, but he was not at all willing to come now. He will come when he has the opportunity” (v. 12). Richard A. Horsley says, “Perhaps Paul and Apollos . . . had a tacit understanding that the latter would not return to Corinth very soon” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on 1 Cor. 16:12). Given the fact that different groups related to Paul or to Apollos at the other’s expense, so to speak, a problem of cliques and disunity that Paul addressed earlier, such an understanding would make sense. By “the other brothers,” according to Furnish, Paul means “either persons traveling with Timothy or those named in v. 17” (op. cit., on v. 12).

Paul begins his final admonitions: “Keep alert, stand firm in your faith, be courageous, be strong. Let all that you do be done in love (ajgavph, agapē )” (vv. 13-14). On the latter, Furnish says, “This appeal is implicit throughout the letter (see 12:31-14:1)” (ibid., on v. 14). It is also important, of course, to “stand firm” in one’s faith.

“Now, brothers and sisters,” says Paul, “you know that members of the household of Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia, and they have devoted themselves to the service of the saints; I urge you to put yourselves at the service of such people, and of everyone who works and toils with them” (vv. 15-16). Earlier, implying that one should not boast about being baptized by one apostle or another, Paul said, “I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one can say that you were baptized in my name. (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.)” (1:14-16). Now, at the end of the letter, Stephanas is one whom Paul rejoices to see. “I rejoice at the coming of Stephanas and Fortunatus and Achaicus, because they have made up for your absence; for they refreshed my spirit as well as yours. So give recognition to such persons” (vv. 17-18). According to Horsley, “This delegation from Corinth may have brought the Corinthians’ letter to Paul or have been preparing to bring Paul’s letter to Corinth” (op. cit., on vv. 15-18).

Apart from these three, Paul does not single out any at Corinth for special greetings. But he sends greetings. “The churches of Asia send greetings” (v. 19a). Paul is apparently now in Ephesus, the capital of the Roman Province of Asia, and the fourth largest city in the empire. His greetings from “the churches of Asia” may well have included the church at Colossae and one or more of the seven churches of Asia addressed in Revelation 2 and 3. Paul also sends greetings from “Aquila and Prisca [Priscilla], together with the church in their house,” who “greet you warmly in the LORD” (v. 19). We know that Paul worked with Aquila and Priscilla in Corinth earlier (Acts 18:2-4); now they are working together in Ephesus. The greeting comes from “all the brothers and sisters,” and Paul says, “Greet one another with a holy kiss” (v. 20). Paul personally writes the greeting in his “own hand (v. 21; cf. Gal. 6:11), apparently to authenticate it (cf. 2 Thess. 3:17).

In closing, Paul again emphasizes love. “Let anyone be accursed who has no love for the Lord. Our Lord, come!” he exclaims (v. 22). “The grace of the Lord Jesus be with you” (v. 23) is a standard blessing, but again he emphasizes love. “My love be with all of you in Christ Jesus” (v. 24). Paul has attempted to correct various problems at Corinth with this letter, but the rather calm way in which he closes the letter–for the most part, but cf. v. 22–apparently does not anticipate the issues that were to call out his strenuous defense of his apostolic ministry in 2 Corinthians.

Matthew 12:22-32

Jesus and Beelzebul (Mk 3.19b-30; Lk 11.14-23)

22 Then they brought to him a demoniac who was blind and mute; and he cured him, so that the one who had been mute could speak and see. 23 All the crowds were amazed and said, "Can this be the Son of David?" 24 But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, "It is only by Beelzebul, the ruler of the demons, that this fellow casts out the demons." 25 He knew what they were thinking and said to them, "Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand. 26 If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand? 27 If I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your own exorcists cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges. 28 But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come to you. 29 Or how can one enter a strong man's house and plunder his property, without first tying up the strong man? Then indeed the house can be plundered. 30 Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. 31 Therefore I tell you, people will be forgiven for every sin and blasphemy, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. (Matthew 12:22-32, NRSV)

On May 26, 2008 (Monday in the week of the Sunday closest to May 25, Year Two) comments were repeated from October 26, 2007 (Friday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 19, Year One), when comments were repeated from October 21, 2005 (Friday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 19, Year One); they are repeated again here with editing and supplement. For comments on this episode from the perspective of Mark’s account, see the Archive for July 18, 2009 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to July 13, Year One). For comments from the perspective of Luke’s account, see the Archive for May 30, 2009 (Saturday in the week of the Seventh Sunday of Easter, Year One).

The occasion when Jesus was accused of casting out demons by Beelzebul appears in three Gospels (Mt. 12:22-30; Mk. 3:22-27; Lk. 11:14-23). In another episode from Matthew we meet the accusation, “By the ruler of the demons he casts out the demons”(Mt. 9:34, cf. vv.3 32-34). And in John’s Gospel there are occasions when Jesus is accused of having a demon (Jn. 7:20; 10:20; 8:48, 52). These passages are included in a separate file Jesus and Beelzebul. Luke has the story in a different context than Matthew and Mark, as a part of his extended “Travel Narrative” (Lk. 9:51-18:14), which includes many of Jesus’ teachings with parallels in Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount and elsewhere, and which includes parables found only in Luke (e.g. the Good Samaritan, Lk. 10:29-37; the Rich Fool, 12:16-21; the Prodigal Son, 15:11-32; and the Rich Man and Lazarus, 16:19-31). As for the parallels between Matthew and Mark, it seems that much of Matthew’s narrative of the early Galilean ministry comes later than the parallels in Mark, but though many of these stories are placed after the Sermon on the Mount, they still generally follow Mark’s sequence. With the Beelzebul story a sequence of close parallels between Matthew and Mark resumes: the Sin against the Holy Spirit (Mt. 12:31-37; Mk. 3:28-30), Jesus’ True Family (Mt. 12:46-50 [after the Sign of Jonah, 12:38-42 and the Return of the Evil Spirit, 12:43-45]), the Parable of the Sower (Mt. 13:1-9; Mk. 4:1-9) and the series of parables in Matthew 13 and Mark 4 (cf. Lk. 8). Even here Matthew brings in related material from other sources.

“Then,” says Matthew, “they brought to him a demoniac who was blind and mute; and he cured him, so that the one who had been mute could speak and see” (Mt. 12:22; cf. Mt. 9:32a; Lk. 11:14a). In Mark, the accusation about Jesus casting out demons by Beelzebul (Mk. 3:22) is not within the report of an exorcism, but comes not long after the report of several exorcisms (Mk. 3:11-12). Upon seeing this miracle, the crowds express amazement. “All the crowds were amazed and said, ‘Can this be the Son of David?’ ” (Mt. 12:23). According to Dennis C. Duling, this “title, expanded from Mk. 10:47-48, is usual in the Gospel’s [i.e. Matthew’s] healing miracles; see 12:23; 15:22; 17:15 [?]; 20:30-31; cf. 21:9” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Mt. 9:27). But this evidence is a bit misleading. In Matthew 17:15, Jesus is addressed as “Lord,” not as “Son of David.” In Matthew 9:27, it and all the parallels have “Son of David,” and Matthew’s is not expanded. In Matthew 20:30-31, Matthew and all the parallels have “Son of David.” While the title Son of David is found only in Matthew in Matthew 15:22, the only parallel is in Mark, where the context is clearly gentile (“Syrophoenician”), and while only Matthew uses the title in the Triumphal Entry narrative, it is clearly not limited to Matthew’s Gospel. In Matthew’s earlier account of the healing of the deaf mute, “the crowds were amazed and said, ‘Never has anything like this been seen in Israel’ ” (Mt. 9:33b). Luke simply says, “and the crowds were amazed” (Lk. 11:14b). The Pharisees, however, in contrast to the crowds, seem offended by Jesus’ exorcism healing miracle. “But when the Pharisees heard it, they said ‘It is only by Beelzebul, the ruler of the demons, that this fellow casts out the demons’ ” (Mt. 12:24; cf. Mt. 9:34; Mk. 3:22, where scribes from Jerusalem make the accusation; and Lk. 11:15, where “some of them,” not “the Pharisees,” make the accusation).

Jesus has an answer to this charge, a logical analogy showing that their charge is absurd. In Matthew, Jesus “knew what they were thinking and said to them, ‘Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand” (Mt. 12:25; cf. Lk. 11:17). In Mark, a similar statement (Mk. 3:24-25) is prefaced by a rhetorical question: “How can Satan Cast out Satan?” (Mk. 3:23b). Mark is the only one who calls these analogies “parables” (Mk. 3:23a). In Matthew, Jesus follows with a rhetorical question, “If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand?” (Mt. 12:26; cf. Lk. 11:18; cf. Mk. 3:23b, question, and v. 26, statement). Jesus challenges the Pharisees: “If I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your own exorcists cast them out. Therefore they will be your judges” (Mt. 12:27 = Lk. 11:19, except for the conjunction dev, de, for kaiv, kai [Mt.], and a difference in word order in the last clause). Matthew’s word order puts the plural pronoun uJmw:n (hymōn) last for emphasis, “Therefore they will be judges of you.” After turning their charge against them, Jesus draws a conclusion. “But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come to you” (Mt. 12:28). Compare, “But if it is by the finger (davktuloV, daktylos) of God that I cast out the demons, then the kingdom of God has come to you” (Lk. 11:20, cf. Exod. 8:19). In Exodus, when Pharaoh’s magicians try to duplicate Moses’ plague of gnats (Exod. 8:16-17), and they cannot (v. 18), they exclaim, “This is the finger (fBac4x,, ’etsba‘ , Heb. Exod. 8:15; davktuloV, daktylos, LXX 8:15) of God!” (Exod. 8:19 NRSV). According to William L. Holladay, the phrase ’etsba‘ ’ ^elōhîm [Myh9lox$ fBac4x,] means “works” in Exod. 8:15 (A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 1971, 10^th corrected impression 1988, s.v. fBac4x,, ’etsba‘). Jesus, alluding to the striking metaphor of doing exorcisms “by the finger [= work] of God,” is cited by Luke, and Matthew interprets the metaphor, “by the Spirit of God.” Jesus continues with another version of the house/kingdom metaphor, asking, “Or how can one enter a strong man’s house and plunder his property, without first tying up the strong man? Then indeed the house can be plundered” (Mt:12:29; cf. Mk. 3:27). Luke’s version is more descriptive. “When a strong man, fully armed, guards his castle, his property is safe. But when one stronger than he attacks him and overpowers him, he takes away his armor in which he trusted and divides his plunder” (Lk. 11:21-22)

Dale C. Allison, Jr., comments on Jesus’ response to the charge that he casts out demons by Beelzebul:

Jesus first responds by appeal to common sense (vv. 25-6). But vv. 27-8 are difficult. If v. 27 urges that two similar activities (exorcisms of Jesus, exorcisms of others) should not be assigned to radically dissimilar sources (Beelzebul, God), v. 28 goes on to make a claim whose logic has seemed to many unclear. Why should Jesus’ exorcisms signal the coming of the kingdom? By his own reasoning should not the same be signaled by the exorcisms of others? But the questions miss the implicit Christological claim. Jesus accepts the miracles of others but holds his own to be of different import because of his identity as the Messiah. What matters is not the exorcisms but the exorcist (‘if I cast out demons’). The Messiah has come as victor over evil forces, so the kingdom is already establishing itself. (Dale C. Allison, Jr., The Oxford Bible Commentary, 2001, p. 861, on Mt. 12:22-37).

By continuing in Matthew and Mark with Jesus’ saying about “blasphemy against the (Holy Mk., cf. Lk.) Spirit,” it is implied that the Pharisees (Mt.) and/or the scribes (Mk.) have committed this sin. “Therefore I tell you,” says Jesus, “people will be forgiven for every sin and blasphemy” (Mt. 12:31a; cf. Mk. 3:28; Lk. 12:10a). Note that Luke uses the saying in a different context; even so “the scribes and the Pharisees began to be very hostile toward him and to cross-examine him about many things, lying in wait for him, to catch him in something he might say” (Lk. 11:53-54). In the speech that follows, Jesus is critical, warning, “Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees, that is, their hypocrisy” (12:1b). Although God will forgive sins, Jesus adds, “but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come” (Mt. 12:31b, 32; cf. Mk. 3:29; Lk. 12:10b). According to Dennis C. Duling, “Blaspheming usually involved dishonoring God’s name (see Ex. 20:7; Lev. 24:16; here [Mt. 9:3] Jesus’ implied claim to be able to forgive sins evokes the charge” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Mt. 9:3), and in the present context, he says, “Blasphemy against the Spirit [is] attributing Jesus’ Spirit-derived power to Satan” (ibid., on Mt. 12:31-32).

In the light of other biblical teaching, I believe it is true to say that if a person is concerned about it, he or she has not committed “the unpardonable sin,” because the concern is a part of the Holy Spirit’s dealing with this person.

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net