Ezra 4:7, 11-24

7 And in the days of Artaxerxes, Bishlam and Mithredath and Tabeel and the rest of their associates wrote to King Artaxerxes of Persia; the letter was written in Aramaic and translated. (Ezra 4:7, NRSV)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11 this is a copy of the letter that they sent):

"To King Artaxerxes: Your servants, the people of the province Beyond the River, send greeting. And now 12 may it be known to the king that the Jews who came up from you to us have gone to Jerusalem. They are rebuilding that rebellious and wicked city; they are finishing the walls and repairing the foundations. 13 Now may it be known to the king that, if this city is rebuilt and the walls finished, they will not pay tribute, custom, or toll, and the royal revenue will be reduced. 14 Now because we share the salt of the palace and it is not fitting for us to witness the king's dishonor, therefore we send and inform the king, 15 so that a search may be made in the annals of your ancestors. You will discover in the annals that this is a rebellious city, hurtful to kings and provinces, and that sedition was stirred up in it from long ago. On that account this city was laid waste. 16 We make known to the king that, if this city is rebuilt and its walls finished, you will then have no possession in the province Beyond the River."

17 The king sent an answer: "To Rehum the royal deputy and Shimshai the scribe and the rest of their associates who live in Samaria and in the rest of the province Beyond the River, greeting. And now 18 the letter that you sent to us has been read in translation before me. 19 So I made a decree, and someone searched and discovered that this city has risen against kings from long ago, and that rebellion and sedition have been made in it. 20 Jerusalem has had mighty kings who ruled over the whole province Beyond the River, to whom tribute, custom, and toll were paid. 21 Therefore issue an order that these people be made to cease, and that this city not be rebuilt, until I make a decree. 22 Moreover, take care not to be slack in this matter; why should damage grow to the hurt of the king?"

23 Then when the copy of King Artaxerxes' letter was read before Rehum and the scribe Shimshai and their associates, they hurried to the Jews in Jerusalem and by force and power made them cease. 24 At that time the work on the house of God in Jerusalem stopped and was discontinued until the second year of the reign of King Darius of Persia. (Ezra 4:11-24, NRSV)

On October 27, 2007 (Saturday 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 22, 2005 (Saturday in the the week of the Sunday closest to October 19, Year One); the comments are repeated again here:

The Book of Ezra starts with a reference to Cyrus the Great of Persia and his edict permitting the Jews to return from Babylon to Judah and rebuild the temple (Ezra 1:2-4). A return of Jews is described in chapter 1 with a detailed list of the returnees in chapter 2. This return was led by Sheshbazzar “prince of Judah” (1:8, 11). Chapter 3 appears to begin later with activities which the Book of Haggai dates “in the second year of King Darius” (i.e. 520 B.C., Hag. 1:1). Ahasuerus, that is, Xerxes I (486-465 B.C.), the Persian king in the Book of Esther, is mentioned in Ezra 4:6. And today’s reading mentions Artaxerxes (Artaxerxes I, 465-424). Ezra himself becomes a part of the story in chapter 7, where the king is Artaxerxes (7:1, 7, 11, 12, 21). Some think this is Artaxerxes II (404-358 B.C.), but that would put the work of Ezra some time later than the work of Nehemiah. Others identify this Artaxerxes as Artaxerxes I. Tamara Cohn Eskenazi has suggested that

the return and rebuilding took place in three or four stages. First, the initial returnees, led by Sheshbazzar in 538, began to rebuild the Temple but were forced to abandon the project. Second, a further group of exiles, under the leadership of Zerubbabel and Jeshua, returned during the reign of the Persian king Darius I (522-486) and completed the construction in 515. Third, a group led by Ezra in 458 during the reign of Artaxerxes I (465-424) reestablished the Torah, i.e., Law of Moses, as the authority for Jews in Judah. Finally, a group led by Nehemiah beginning in 445, also during the time of Artaxerxes I, restored Jerusalem’s walls and repopulated Jerusalem. (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, in the Introduction to Ezra)

Prior to the beginning of today’s reading, it is reported that some of the local people make an offer of assistance in building the temple. This report implies from the outset that such help would be unwelcome. “When the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin heard that the returned exiles were building a temple to the LORD, the God of Israel, They approached Zerubbabel and the heads of the families and said to them, ‘Let us build with you, for we worship your God as you do, and we have been sacrificing to him ever since the days of King Esar-haddon of Assyria who brought us here’ ” (Ezra 4:1-2). According to Hindy Najman, “The adversaries are presumably the same peoples of the land who are harassing and intimidating the returnees. See 3:3” (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, on Ezra 4:1). David J. A. Clines agrees: “The adversaries [are] presumably the people of the land (v. 4).” And he adds, in reference to “the returned exiles,” that “again, there is no word of those who had stayed in the land (see note on 3:8)” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Ezra 4:1). In his earlier note, he says, “Those who had not been in exile in Babylonia but had remained in the land seem to be studiously ignored by the author” (ibid., on 3:8).

In response to these “adversaries,” Zerubbabel makes his position clear. “But Zerubbabel, Jeshua, and the rest of the heads of families in Israel said to them, ‘You shall have no part with us in building a house to our God; but we alone will build to the LORD, the God of Israel, as King Cyrus of Persia has commanded us’ ” (4:3). With reference to “No part with us,” Clines says, “Perhaps it is implied that those in the land continued worship of their national gods along with Yahweh, as former colonists are said to have done (2 Kings 17:41)” (ibid., on v. 3). According to Eskenazi, “the returnees claim that Cyrus’s decree applies only to them. They consider themselves the sole legitimate remnant of Judah, the heir of the Israel called by God out of Egypt. At a later period, Ezra-Nehemiah shows some readiness to include outsiders (see 6:21)” (op. cit., on v. 3). According to Najman, “Josephus explains that only the returnees, namely the Jews, were permitted to participate in the building of the Temple, while the local peoples were told that they were permitted to worship at the Temple once it was completed (Ant. 11.4.3). Rabbinic interpretations justify the exclusion of the local peoples by claiming either that they were not descendants of Israel but Cutheans (Pirqe R. El. 38), or that they were idol worshippers (b. ‘Arak. 5b) and therefore prohibited from involvement in the rebuilding and rededication of the Temple” (op. cit., on v. 3).

In turn, the response of “the people of the land discouraged the people (Mfa ydey4 Myp09ram4, m ^erappîm y ^edê ‘am) of Judah, and made them afraid to build, and they bribed officials to frustrate their plan throughout the reign of King Cyrus of Persia and until the reign of King Darius of Persia” (vv. 4-5). The time span here covers the period from shortly after the first return (538 B.C.) until “the reign of King Darius,” who reigned 522-486 BC (cf. the “Chronological Table of Rulers, NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, p. 531 Essays). It appears that this animosity continued for an extended period, for we quickly move forward to “the reign of Ahasuerus”: “In the reign of Ahasuerus, in his accession year, they wrote an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem” (v. 6). Ahasuerus is the biblical name for Xerxes I of Persia (486-465 B.C., cf. the table cited above), the king in the book of Esther (Est. 1:1, etc.). “This letter [i.e., the accusation of v. 6],” says Eskenazi, “is not preserved” (op. cit., on v. 6).

But at the beginning of today’s reading we quickly move forward in time again. “And in the days of Artaxerxes, Bishlam and Mithredath and Tabeel and the rest of their associates wrote to King Artaxerxes of Persia; the letter was written in Aramaic and translated” (v. 7). Artaxerxes I of Persia ruled from 465 to 424 B.C. (cf. the table cited above). According to Najman, “This is Artaxerxes I Longimanus (Long Hand)” (op. cit., on v. 11). At this point, beginning with verse 8, the text of Ezra is in the Aramaic language, which served as the lingua franca in the western provinces of the Persian Empire. The Aramaic language would eventually become the native language of the Jews of Jesus’ time. (Daniel 2:4-7:28 is also written in the Aramaic language.)

The Aramaic text continues through 6:18 (cf. NRSV text note a on Ezra 4:7). A substantial portion of this Aramaic section consists of correspondence with the emperor. The text of the letter of “Bishlam and Mithredath and Tabeel and the rest of their associates . . . to King Artaxerxes of Persia” (v. 7) extends from 4:11b to 22. Another letter, that of “Tattenai the governor . . . and Shethar-bozenai and his associates . . . sent to King Darius” (5:6) is found in 5:7b-17). And it is reported that they found a record of Cyrus’s decree, which is cited in 6:2-5). Verses 6-12 represent the decree of Cyrus that the building project in Jerusalem is to be supported. According to Clines, “the decree of Darius authorizing the rebuilding of the temple quotes the earlier decree of Cyrus (vv. 2-5)” (op. cit., on 6:1-12). The time line here clearly moves forward from the time of Darius I through Xerxes I to Artaxerxes I and back.

The focus of today’s reading is on the letter sent to Artaxerxes by “Bishlam and Mithredath and Tabeel and the rest of their associates” (4:7). “The senders,” says Eskenazi, “include Persian officials and local inhabitants” (op. cit., on vv. 7b-11). The letter begins, “To King Artaxerxes: Your servants, the people of the province Beyond the River, send greeting” (v. 11b). Of “Beyond the River,” Najman says, “This large Persian province was west of the Euphrates River and extended as far as Egypt (including Judah)” (op. cit., on v. 10). “And now,” says the letter, “may it be known to the king that the Jews who came up from you to us have gone to Jerusalem. They are rebuilding that rebellious and wicked city; they are finishing the walls and repairing the foundations” (vv. 11c, 12). Of the words, “Rebuilding that . . . city,” Eskenazi says, “Neh. 1-7 records the rebuilding of the city in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes” (ibid. on v. 12). The “twentieth year of Artaxerxes” would be 445 B.C., when the city and the wall were rebuilt in earnest, but the reference here may be generalizing, so to speak.

We come to the point of the letter to Artaxerxes. “Now may it be known to the king that, if this city is rebuilt and the walls finished, they will not pay tribute, custom, or toll, and the royal revenue will be reduced” (v. 13). For the writers of this letter it is not enough to imply a shortfall in the imperial revenues. “Now because we share the salt of the palace,” they say, “and it is not fitting for us to witness the king’s dishonor, therefore we send and inform the king” (v. 14). “We eat the salt of the palace,” says Najman, citing the NJPS (1985, 1999) version, is “an expression signifying the common interests of loyal allies. Apparently an oath was taken and solemnized through participation in a common meal” (op. cit., on v. 14). “Partners in a covenant agreement,” says Clines, “ratified it by a meal seasoned with salt (cf. Lev. 2:13; Num. 18:19)” (op. cit. on v. 14). But the letter continues charging the returned Judeans with sedition, conspiracy against the Persian empire. They “inform the king” (v. 14b), “so that a search may be made in the annals of your ancestors. You will discover in the annals that this is a rebellious city, hurtful to kings and provinces, and that sedition was stirred up in it from long ago. On that account this city was laid waste. We make known to the king that, if this city is rebuilt and its walls finished, you will then have no possession in the province Beyond the River” (vv. 15-16). Clines says that this is “an accusation, no doubt false, by officials of the province of Samaria that the Jews intend to revolt against the Persians. It is in the name of various Persian officials (e.g., judges, envoys) and ethnic groups settled there (e.g., people of Erech)” (ibid., on vv. 8-16). Artaxerxes, says Najman, “is asked to consult the Babylonian and Assyrian chronicles for records of the rebellions and eventual exiles of both the Northern Kingdom of Israel and the Southern Kingdom of Judah. He is asked, in particular, for records of the Judean rebellions against Babylonia and Nebuchadnezzar’s eventual destruction of Jerusalem” (op. cit., on v. 15). “This,” she adds, “is the crux of their argument: The province of Yehud [Judah] will rebel, trying to assert its independence, and others will follow suit” (ibid., on v. 16).

Artaxerxes responds by letter, agreeing to the request of these enemies of the Judeans. After the standard greeting (v. 17), he says the letter has been read to him “in translation” (v. 18), and that his decree that an investigation be made has revealed “that rebellion and sedition have been made in it [i.e. in Jerusalem]” (v. 19). The king’s letter continues: “Jerusalem has had mighty kings who ruled over the whole province Beyond the River, to whom tribute, custom, and toll were paid” (v. 20). So he orders that “these people be made to cease, and that this city not be rebuilt, until I make a decree” (v. 21). “This loophole,” says Eskenazi, “will enable Nehemiah to secure a new decree” (op. cit., on v. 21). The king wants to insure that he will not suffer the loss of a province as implied by the letter of protest. “Moreover,” he adds, “take care not to be slack in this matter; why should damage grow to the hurt of the king?” (v. 22).

When Rehum and the scribe Shimshai and their associates receive the letter, they hurry “to the Jews in Jerusalem and by force and power [make] them cease” (v. 23). And so, we are told, “At that time the work on the house of God in Jerusalem stopped and was discontinued until the second year of the reign of King Darius of Persia” (v. 24), which, according to Eskenazi, would be “520 BCE, when rebuilding resumes” (op. cit., on v. 24).

We note an apparent chronological difficulty here. If the letter addressed to Artaxerxes (4:11-16) is to Artaxerxes I (465-421 B.C.), that would put the letter at least thirty-five years after the second year (520 B.C., 4:24) of Darius I (522-486 B.C.). Eskenazi says the correspondence reported in chapter 4, “(mostly in Aramaic) is out of chronological order. Here, it serves thematic functions, documenting how adversaries successfully sabotaged Jewish activities, and identifying the opponents as foreigners who displaced the legitimate inhabitants (4:10)” (ibid., on 4:7-24). At the end of the chapter, she says that the phrase, “At that time, returns to 4:5 and restores the story to its chronological sequence, The second year of . . . Darius, i.e. 520 BCE, when rebuilding resumes” (ibid., on v. 24). The opposition to the Jews represented by their opponents’ letter to Artaxerxes and his response must have been disheartening for the Jews. But Eskenazi notes that this exchange “inadvertently . . . proves the antiquity of the city [Jerusalem] and of Jewish claims to it” (on vv. 13-14).

or Jeremiah 44:1-14 (alternative reading, Presbyterian and Lutheran traditions)

44:1 The word that came to Jeremiah for all the Judeans living in the land of Egypt, at Migdol, at Tahpanhes, at Memphis, and in the land of Pathros, 2 Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: You yourselves have seen all the disaster that I have brought on Jerusalem and on all the towns of Judah. Look at them; today they are a desolation, without an inhabitant in them, 3 because of the wickedness that they committed, provoking me to anger, in that they went to make offerings and serve other gods that they had not known, neither they, nor you, nor your ancestors. 4 Yet I persistently sent to you all my servants the prophets, saying, "I beg you not to do this abominable thing that I hate!" 5 But they did not listen or incline their ear, to turn from their wickedness and make no offerings to other gods. 6 So my wrath and my anger were poured out and kindled in the towns of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem; and they became a waste and a desolation, as they still are today. 7 And now thus says the LORD God of hosts, the God of Israel: Why are you doing such great harm to yourselves, to cut off man and woman, child and infant, from the midst of Judah, leaving yourselves without a remnant? 8 Why do you provoke me to anger with the works of your hands, making offerings to other gods in the land of Egypt where you have come to settle? Will you be cut off and become an object of cursing and ridicule among all the nations of the earth? 9 Have you forgotten the crimes of your ancestors, of the kings of Judah, of their wives, your own crimes and those of your wives, which they committed in the land of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem? 10 They have shown no contrition or fear to this day, nor have they walked in my law and my statutes that I set before you and before your ancestors.

11 Therefore thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: I am determined to bring disaster on you, to bring all Judah to an end. 12 I will take the remnant of Judah who are determined to come to the land of Egypt to settle, and they shall perish, everyone; in the land of Egypt they shall fall; by the sword and by famine they shall perish; from the least to the greatest, they shall die by the sword and by famine; and they shall become an object of execration and horror, of cursing and ridicule. 13 I will punish those who live in the land of Egypt, as I have punished Jerusalem, with the sword, with famine, and with pestilence, 14 so that none of the remnant of Judah who have come to settle in the land of Egypt shall escape or survive or return to the land of Judah. Although they long to go back to live there, they shall not go back, except some fugitives. (Jeremiah 44:1-14, NRSV)

This reading, the alternative reading for today in the Presbyterian and Lutheran traditions, was the primary reading for all three traditions Monday of this week (Oct. 19, 2009). For this reading, see Monday’s comments.

Philemon 1-25

Salutation

1 Paul, a prisoner of Christ Jesus, and Timothy our brother,

To Philemon our dear friend and co-worker, 2 to Apphia our sister, to Archippus our fellow soldier, and to the church in your house:

3 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Paul’s Thanksgiving for Philemon’s Love and Faith

4 When I remember you in my prayers, I always thank my God 5 because I hear of your love for all the saints and your faith toward the Lord Jesus. 6 I pray that the sharing of your faith may become effective when you perceive all the good that we may do for Christ. 7 I have indeed received much joy and encouragement from your love, because the hearts of the saints have been refreshed through you, my brother.

Paul's Plea for Onesimus

8 For this reason, though I am bold enough in Christ to command you to do your duty, 9 yet I would rather appeal to you on the basis of love-and I, Paul, do this as an old man, and now also as a prisoner of Christ Jesus. 10 I am appealing to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become during my imprisonment. 11 Formerly he was useless to you, but now he is indeed useful both to you and to me. 12 I am sending him, that is, my own heart, back to you. 13 I wanted to keep him with me, so that he might be of service to me in your place during my imprisonment for the gospel; 14 but I preferred to do nothing without your consent, in order that your good deed might be voluntary and not something forced. 15 Perhaps this is the reason he was separated from you for a while, so that you might have him back forever, 16 no longer as a slave but more than a slave, a beloved brother--especially to me but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.

17 So if you consider me your partner, welcome him as you would welcome me. 18 If he has wronged you in any way, or owes you anything, charge that to my account. 19 I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand: I will repay it. I say nothing about your owing me even your own self. 20 Yes, brother, let me have this benefit from you in the Lord! Refresh my heart in Christ. 21 Confident of your obedience, I am writing to you, knowing that you will do even more than I say.

22 One thing more–prepare a guest room for me, for I am hoping through your prayers to be restored to you.

Final Greetings and Benediction

23 Epaphras, my fellow prisoner in Christ Jesus, sends greetings to you, 24 and so do Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke, my fellow workers.

25 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. (Philemon 1-25, NRSV)

On October 27, 2007 (Saturday 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 February 24, 2006 (Friday in the week of the Seventh Sunday after the Epiphany, Year One), when comments were repeated from October 22, 2005 (Saturday of the week of the Twenty-second Sunday after Pentecost, from Proper 24, Year One). The comments are repeated here with editing and supplement:

Paul writes a brief letter to Philemon, a leader in the church at Colossae. The salutation follows the pattern of his other letters. He identifies himself as “a prisoner of Christ Jesus,” and includes “Timothy our brother” as a cosender (Philem. 1a). He addresses “Philemon our dear friend and coworker” (v. 1b) , “Apphia our sister, . . . Archippus our fellow soldier, and . . . the church in your house” (v. 2). As usual, his greeting adapts the Greek (cavriV, charis, “grace,” for caivrein, chairein, cf. Jas. 1:1) and Hebrew (eijrhvnh, eirēnē, for MOlwA, šālôm) forms with a theological nuance (v. 3).

Paul introduces his thanksgiving, which typically follows the salutation in his letters (cf. Phil. 1:3-11), by saying, “When I remember you (sou, sou) in my prayers, I always thank my God” (Philem. 4). The pronoun “you” is singular and focuses on Philemon himself. Margaret M. Mitchell says, “Because he [Paul] calls him ‘brother’ in v. 20, it [the pronoun ‘you’] must refer either to Philemon or Archippus; tradition and current scholarship almost unanimously choose Philemon, on the grounds that he is the first named” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Philem. 4-7). The thanksgiving praises Philemon, “because I hear of your (sou, sou, singular) love for all the saints and your faith toward the Lord Jesus” (v. 5). The praise is certainly genuine, but it also prepares the way for the request to follow. Paul implies further improvement when he says, “I pray that the sharing of your faith may become effective when you perceive all the good that we may do for Christ” (v. 6). But he rounds off the thanksgiving with further praise. “I have indeed received much joy and encouragement from your love, because the hearts of the saints have been refreshed through you, my brother” (v. 7). Paul hopes to increase Philemon’s “love for all the saints” (v. 5) and his refreshing of them (v. 7) by the inclusion of Onesimus as a “beloved brother” (v. 16).

As Paul turns to the business at hand, he chooses his words carefully. “For this reason,” he says, “though I am bold enough in Christ to command you to do your duty, yet I would rather appeal to you on the basis of love–and I, Paul, do this as an old man, and now also as a prisoner of Christ Jesus” (vv. 8-9). Paul’s appeal, as he says, is about “my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become during my imprisonment” (v. 10). Mitchell explains: “Whose father I have become, [is literally] ‘whom I begot’ to new life in the gospel (cf. 1 Cor. 4:15)” (op. cit., on v. 10). Paul makes a serious point with a kind of pun on the name of Onesimus ( =OnhvsimoV, Onēsimos). “Formerly he was useless (a[crhstoV, achrēstos) to you, but now he is indeed useful (eu[crhstoV, euxhrēston) both to you and to me” (v. 11). The NRSV text note f says, “The name Onesimus means useful or (compare verse 20) beneficial.” According to the lexicon, it means “lit. ‘useful’ . . . a name frequently found  . . . , especially for slaves” (Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich [BDAG], A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3^rd ed., 2000, s.v. ( =OnhvsimoV, Onēsimos). Onesimus, whom Paul says has been “useful . . . to me,” has provided benefits to Paul in prison. Paul, however, knowing that Onesimus has been Philemon’s slave, sends him back, possibly from prison in Ephesus to Colossae, about 110 miles, though traditionally understood, from prison in Rome to Colossae, much further. Paul expresses his strong affection for Onesimus. “ I am sending him, that is, my own heart, back to you (v. 12, my emphasis with bold print).

Paul says he wanted “to keep him [Onesimus] with me [Paul], so that he might be of service to me in your [Philemon’s] place during my imprisonment for the Gospel” (v. 13, cf. Heb. 13:3). But Paul chooses not to force Philemon to do the right thing with respect to Onesimus. “I preferred,” he says, “to do nothing without your consent, in order that your good deed might be voluntary and not something forced” (v. 14). Paul puts the situation in the best light. “Perhaps this is the reason he was separated from you for a while, so that you might have him back forever” (v. 15). Then comes the decisive question, as Paul adds that Philemon should “have him [Onesimus] back forever, no longer as a slave but more than a slave, a beloved brother–especially to me but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord” (v. 16). “The problem is stated,” says Mitchell,

status dissonance (i.e., when a person occupies two or more social positions simultaneously). What happens when a slave of a Christian master becomes a Christian? Some scholars take Paul to mean the slave stops being a slave by becoming a brother, but others think Paul considers the new status of brother as relativizing, but not changing, the slave’s station in the world. (op. cit., on Philem. 16)

One hopes that the former is the case. Paul certainly argues for Philemon’s freedom, and his principle that there is “no longer slave or free” in Christ (Gal. 3:28). One would hardly have expected him to lead a slave rebellion in the manner of that led by Spartacus (73-71 B.C.). But his principles certainly provide a basis for respect for the rights and freedom of all human beings under God.

Paul does not command, but asks in a most forceful way, “So if you consider me your partner, welcome him as you would welcome me” (v. 17). Paul offers to pay anything that Onesimus “owes” to Philemon. “If he has wronged you in any way, or owes you anything, charge that to my account. I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand: I will repay it” (vv. 18, 19a). By saying that he will not mention it, he in fact points out that Philemon owes something, “even your own self,” to Paul (v. 19b). “Yes, brother,” says Paul, “let me have this benefit (ojnaivmhn, onaimēn) from you in the Lord! Refresh my heart in Christ” (v. 20). The verb here, translated “let me have this benefit,” is ojnivnhmi, oninēmi, in a form that means “let me have some benefit from you in the Lord” (BDAG, s.v. ojnivnhmi, oninēmi) and so echoes the earlier play on words (v. 11).

Though Paul falls just a little short of expressing his request as a command, he closes by describing himself as “confident of your [Philemon’s] obedience” and expecting “that you will do even more than I say” (v. 21). The fact that he expects to come, and asks that a room be prepared (v. 22), also reminds Philemon that he should take care of the matter before Paul comes–if, through Philemon’s prayers, Paul is released from prison (v. 23). According to Mitchell, final greetings are expressed from “the same five people [as] are named in Col. 4:10-14” (op. cit., on vv. 23-24), which, as many believe, indicates that the letters to the Colossians and to Philemon were sent together by the same messenger.

Matthew 12:33-42

A Tree and Its Fruit (Mt 7.15-20)

33 "Either make the tree good, and its fruit good; or make the tree bad, and its fruit bad; for the tree is known by its fruit. 34 You brood of vipers! How can you speak good things, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. 35 The good person brings good things out of a good treasure, and the evil person brings evil things out of an evil treasure. 36 I tell you, on the day of judgment you will have to give an account for every careless word you utter; 37 for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned." (Matthew 12:33-37, NRSV)

The Sign of Jonah (Lk 11.29-32)

38 Then some of the scribes and Pharisees said to him, "Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you." 39 But he answered them, "An evil and adulterous generation asks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40 For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so for three days and three nights the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth. 41 The people of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the proclamation of Jonah, and see, something greater than Jonah is here! 42 The queen of the South will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because she came from the ends of the earth to listen to the wisdom of Solomon, and see, something greater than Solomon is here! (Matthew 12:38-42, NRSV)

On May 27, 2008 (Tuesday in the week of the Sunday closest to May 25, Year Two), comments were repeated from October 27, 2007 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 19, Year One), when comments were repeated from October 22, 2005 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 19, Year One); they are repeated here. The parallel passages for today, as those for yesterday are presented in the table in a separate file Jesus and Beelzebul.

Near the end of the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew, Jesus uses a comparison of good fruits and weeds (Mt. 7:16-19) in a warning against “false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing” (v. 15). Matthew’s Christian community has probably been disturbed by such “false prophets.” Luke’s Sermon on the Plain has a similar comparison of fruits (Lk. 6:44), figs with the fruit of thorn [trees], perhaps something like apricots, and grapes with blackberries (the “fruit” of the bramble bush). Luke’s version is rather like comparing lemons and oranges. One would naturally choose the sweeter fruit. Today’s reading from Matthew (12:33-37) has aspects that are parallel to both of these “fruits” passages, but Jesus goes straight to the point. “Either make the tree good, and its fruit good; or make the tree bad, and its fruit bad; for the tree is known by its fruit” (Mt. 12:33). This time, it is a direct warning to the listening crowds, especially about the Pharisees who have accused him of casting out demons by Beelzebul (Mt. 12:22-32), not a warning about the threat of false prophets (or false Christian teachers), as in Matthew 7. It is perhaps of note that in the Gospel of Thomas, consecutive sayings of Jesus are about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (no. 44) and good or bad fruit (no. 45). The appearance of the same sequence here in the Gospel of Thomas probably indicates dependance on the Gospel of Matthew, or perhaps, an early version of Matthew. Saying number 45 from the Gospel of Thomas is worth quoting here:

Jesus said: Grapes are not gathered from thorns, nor (ou[te [oute]) are figs picked from camel’s thistles; [for (gavr [gar])] they give no fruit (karpovV [karpos]). A [good (ajgaqovV [agathos])] man brings forth good (ajgaqovn [agathon]) from his treasure; a wicked (ka(kovV), [kakos]) man brings forth evil (ponhrovn [ponēron]) from his evil treasure which is in his heart, and speaks evil things (ponhrovn [ponēron]); for (gavr [gar]) out of the abundance of the heart he brings forth evil things (ponhrovn [ponēron]). (Gospel of Thomas, 45, trans. Bruce M. Metzger)

Note that the inclusion of references to Greek words in the translation of a Coptic text calls attention to the relationship between the two languages, or better, the influence of the Greek language on the ancient Christian Coptic culture.

In Matthew’s context, Jesus continues. “You brood of vipers!” says Jesus. “How can you speak good things, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks (Mt. 12:34; cf Lk. 6:45b). “The good person,” says Jesus, “brings good things out of a good treasure, and the evil person brings evil things out of an evil treasure” (Mt. 12:35; cf. Lk. 6:45a). In Matthew, Jesus continues with reference to the judgment. “I tell you, on the day of judgment you will have to give an account for every careless word you utter; for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned” (Mt. 12:36-37). It seems like a strict rule. We “will have to give an account for every careless word” (v. 36). This reference to “the day of judgment” probably was not included by the Gospel of Thomas because it did not fit its theology.

The request or demand for a sign from Jesus appears in all the Gospels, though in rather different contexts. “Then,” says Jesus in Matthew, “some of the scribes and Pharisees said to him, ‘Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you’ ” (Mt. 12:38; cf. Mk. 8:11; Lk 11:16). The stated purpose “to test him” (Mk., Lk.) is implicit in Matthew. According to Mark, Jesus “sighed deeply in his spirit and said, ‘Why does this generation ask for a sign? Truly I tell you, no sign will be given to this generation’ ” (Mk. 8:12). Jesus points out the insincerity of their request by referring to them as “an evil and adulterous generation” (Mt. 12:39; cf. Mt. 16:4; Mk. 8:12; Lk. 11:29). Matthew and Luke present an exception: “But he answered them, ‘An evil and adulterous generation asks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah’ ” (Mt. 12:39). Whereas in Matthew, this is directed to “some of the scribes and Pharisees (v. 38), Luke’s version has it addressed to the increasing crowds: “When the crowds were increasing, he began to say, ‘This generation is an evil generation; it asks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah” (Lk. 11:29). In this context, it appears evident that Matthew is combining materials from two sources, Mark and Q (i.e., the hypothetical sayings source said to be used by Matthew and Luke). It appears that the Pharisees wanted to see a miracle on a grand scale, but, as Dale C. Allison, Jr., notes, “The irony is that Jesus has already worked enough miracles to persuade an open mind” (Oxford Bible Commentary, 2001, p. 861, on Mt. 12:38-45).

The description of the “sign of Jonah” is brief in Luke, as compared with Matthew’s version. “For just as Jonah became a sign to the people of Nineveh, so the Son of Man will be to this generation” (Lk. 11:29). Compare Matthew’s version: “For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so for three days and three nights the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth” (Mt. 12:40). According to John S. Kloppenborg, “This sign is not the resurrection of Jesus, as Matthew tries to interpret it” (Q, The Earliest Gospel; An Introduction to the Original Stories and Sayings of Jesus, 2008, p. 71). Dennis C. Duling says, “The author [Matthew] provides two interpretations of the sign of the prophet Jonah: Jesus’ death and resurrection (12:40; see Jon. 1:17-2:10) and Jesus’ preaching of repentance (12:42; see 3:2; 4:17; also Lk. 11:30-32; Jon. 3:4-10)” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Mt. 12:39).

According to Matthew, Jesus refers to “the people of Nineveh” before referring to “the Queen of the South,” but Luke has the reverse order. “The people of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented at the proclamation of Jonah, and see, something greater than Jonah is here!” (Mt. 12:41; cf. Lk. 11:32). In Matthew, Jesus continues, “The queen of the South will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because she came from the ends of the earth to listen to the wisdom of Solomon, and see, something greater than Solomon is here!” (Mt. 12:42; cf. Lk. 11:31). In Kloppenberg’s interpretation, the source “Q” emphasizes the preaching of Jonah and the response of the people of Nineveh in repentance as the sign. According to Kloppenborg, this source, while not discounting miracles, points “to other events that ought to lead a person of insight to acknowledge the reign of God. Q adduces the example of the Queen of the South and the people of Nineveh, neither of whom witnessed miracles, but nonetheless recognized God’s power in Solomon and Jonah. Q argues that ‘there is some-thing greater than Solomon or Jonah here’ ([Q] 11:31-32)” (op. cit.). Following the scholars’ convention, by “Q 11:31-32,” Kloppenborg uses Luke’s chapter and verse references to the hypothetical source for Luke 11:31-32 and the parallel text in Matthew 12:41-42. His reconstruction of “Q” at this point is:

³¹The queen of the South will be raised at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to the wisdom of Solomon, and look, something more than Solomon is here! ³²Ninevite men will arise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it. For they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and look, something more than Jonah is here! (ibid., p. 134)

As for what Kloppenborg calls Matthew’s reinterpretation, we don’t need to be too literal about the “three days and three nights” as a reference to Jesus time in the grave–from late on Friday to early on Sunday. The time reference is inclusive, including part of Friday and part of Sunday, which for the Judeans, began at sundown Friday. William Barclay calls attention to Luke’s wording; Luke “simply says that Jesus said, ‘For as Jonah became a sign to the men of Nineveh, so will the Son of Man be to this generation” (Luke 11:30)” (The Gospel of Matthew, Daily Study Bible, vol. 2, rev. ed., 1975, p. 49, on Mt. 12:39). Alan Hugh McNeile puts it this way: “The Son of Man will come, as it were from a foreign land, with a message of doom to this generation as Jonah did to the Ninevites” (The Gospel According to St. Matthew, Thornapple Commentaries, 1914, reprint 1980, pp. 181-182, on Mt. 12:40). On verse 42, McNeile adds, “As a Prophet Jesus was more than Jonah, as a Teacher than Solomon” (p. 182).

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net