Zechariah 7:8-8:8, Episcopal and Lutheran Traditions

Punishment for Rejecting God's Demands

8 The word of the LORD came to Zechariah, saying: 9 Thus says the LORD of hosts: Render true judgments, show kindness and mercy to one another; 10 do not oppress the widow, the orphan, the alien, or the poor; and do not devise evil in your hearts against one another. 11 But they refused to listen, and turned a stubborn shoulder, and stopped their ears in order not to hear. 12 They made their hearts adamant in order not to hear the law and the words that the LORD of hosts had sent by his spirit through the former prophets. Therefore great wrath came from the LORD of hosts. 13 Just as, when I called, they would not hear, so, when they called, I would not hear, says the LORD of hosts, 14 and I scattered them with a whirlwind among all the nations that they had not known. Thus the land they left was desolate, so that no one went to and fro, and a pleasant land was made desolate.

God's Promises to Zion

8:1 The word of the LORD of hosts came to me, saying: 2 Thus says the LORD of hosts: I am jealous for Zion with great jealousy, and I am jealous for her with great wrath. 3 Thus says the LORD: I will return to Zion, and will dwell in the midst of Jerusalem; Jerusalem shall be called the faithful city, and the mountain of the LORD of hosts shall be called the holy mountain. 4 Thus says the LORD of hosts: Old men and old women shall again sit in the streets of Jerusalem, each with staff in hand because of their great age. 5 And the streets of the city shall be full of boys and girls playing in its streets. 6 Thus says the LORD of hosts: Even though it seems impossible to the remnant of this people in these days, should it also seem impossible to me, says the LORD of hosts? 7 Thus says the LORD of hosts: I will save my people from the east country and from the west country; 8 and I will bring them to live in Jerusalem. They shall be my people and I will be their God, in faithfulness and in righteousness. (Zechariah 7:8-8:8, NRSV)

On December 21, 2007 (Friday in the week of the Third Sunday of Advent, Year Two), comments were repeated with editing and supplement from December 16, 2005 (Friday in the week of the Third Sunday of Advent, Year Two), when comments were repeated from an E-mail sent December 18, 2003, for December 19, 2003. The comments are repeated again with editing and supplement.

You've probably heard this one: For some people, the glass is half empty; for others, the glass is half full. Murphy's famous law, "If anything can go wrong, it will," represents the "half empty" side. On the other hand, there's the one who said, "I only have two teeth left, but thank the Lord, they meet!" But there's another approach. Zechariah reminds us to look beyond the situation at hand--not that we should close our eyes and hope against hope--but to realize that God, our heavenly Father, is in control. "Even though it seems impossible," the LORD asks, "should it also seem impossible to me?" When you put it that way, no, of course not!

The reading from Zechariah, a prophet to the post-exilic community, has two parts: (1) “Punishment for Rejecting God’s Demands” (Zech. 7:8-14, NRSV subtitle, some printings), and “God’s Promises to Zion” (NRSV subtitle, some printings). The reading begins with “the word of the LORD (hvhy rbaD4, d ^e var YHWH) [that] came to Zechariah” (Zech. 7:8). “Thus says the LORD of hosts (tOxbAc4 hvhy rmaxAA hKo, kōh ’āmar YHWH ts ^evā’ôth): Render true judgments, show kindness and mercy to one another; do not oppress the widow, the orphan, the alien, or the poor; and do not devise evil in your hearts against one another” (vv. 9-10). “This,” say  R. Lansing Hicks and Walter Brueggemann, “is the essence of prophetic moral teaching Isa. 1:16-17; 55:6-9; 58:6-12; Jer. 7:5-7; Am. 55:14-15, 21-24; Mic. 6:8)” (NOAB, 2^nd ed., 1994, on Zech. 7:9-10). According to Ehud Ben Zvi, “The offenses include plotting evil in one’s heart, not just the actual commission of evil against another” (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, on Zech. 7:10). This admonition is followed by what seems to be a common prophetic judgment. “ But they refused to listen, and turned a stubborn shoulder, and stopped their ears in order not to hear” (v. 11). The prophet explains this stubbornness and the ignoring the word of former prophets that led to judgment. “They made their hearts adamant in order not to hear the law and the words that the LORD of hosts had sent by his spirit through the former prophets. Therefore great wrath came from the LORD of hosts” (v. 12). Hicks and Brueggemann offer several cross-references (op. cit., on v. 12): “They [i.e., the Israelite people] stood up in their place and read [‘i.e., they listened to the reading,’ Arthur Jeffrey and John L. Collins, NOAB, 2^nd ed., 1994, on Neh. 9:3] from the book of the law of the LORD their God for a fourth part of the day, and for another fourth they made confession and worshipped the LORD their God” (Neh. 9:3); “O LORD, do your eyes not look for truth? / You have struck them, / but they felt no anguish; / you have consumed them, / but they refused to take correction. / They have made their faces harder than rock; / they have refused to turn back” (Jer. 5:3); cf. Jer. 7:25-26; 11:10; Dan. 9:11-14. According to Zechariah, the LORD says he reciprocated the people’s refusal to listen to him: “Just as, when I called, they would not hear, so, when they called, I would not hear, says the LORD of hosts” (v. 13). Hicks and Brueggemann offer a couple more cross-references (op. cit. on v. 13): “When you stretch out your hands, / I will hide my eyes from you; / even though you make many prayers, / I will not listen; / your hands are full of blood” (Isa. 1:15); cf. Jeremiah 7:13-15). According to Zechariah, the LORD would not head their pleas but, as he says, “I scattered them with a whirlwind among all the nations that they had not known” (v. 14a). In consequence, “the land they left was desolate, so that no one went to and fro, and a pleasant land was made desolate” (v. 14b).

But in the second part of the reading (see above), the tone changes, as the book moves toward the conclusion (tomorrow) of the first major section. The introductory reference to “the word of the LORD,” is used again. “The word of the the LORD (hvhy rbaD4, d ^e var YHWH) of hosts came to me saying, Thus says the LORD of hosts (tOxbAc4 hvhy rmaxAA hKo, kōh ’āmar YHWH ts ^evā’ôth):” (8:1-2a). With that begins a series of what W. Sibley Towner calls “oracles and exhortations on the restoration of Zion (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Zech. 8:1-17). Note the repetition of “thus says the LORD,” or “thus says the LORD of hosts,” in vv. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 14, 19, 20, 23; compare also “says the LORD,” or “says the LORD of hosts,” in vv. 6, 11, 14, 17; cf. also “the word of the LORD of hosts,” v. 18. Hicks and Brueggemann count here “Ten sections introduced by the words, “Thus says the LORD of hosts (except in v. 3 where the words ‘of hosts’ are not present)” (op. cit., on 8:1-23; cf. Mobley, op. cit., on 8:1-23). “All of them,” say Hicks and Brueggemann, “deal with the messianic era” (ibid).

Now the LORD says, “I am jealous for Zion with great jealousy, and I am jealous for her with great wrath” (8:2). This time, says Towner, “God’s jealousy is zeal for achieving justice for Zion” (op. cit., on Zech. 8:2). Mobley refers to Joel 2:18: “Then the LORD became jealous for his land, / and had pity on his people” (op. cit., on Zech. 2:8). But Zechariah continues with concrete and specific promises. “Thus says the LORD: I will return to Zion, and will dwell in the midst of Jerusalem; Jerusalem shall be called the faithful city, and the mountain of the LORD of hosts shall be called the holy mountain” (Zech. 8:3). Mobley has several cross-references “Isa. 1:26; 11:9; 62:11-12; Jer. 31:23” (ibid., on v. 3). “Thus says the LORD of hosts,” continues Zechariah: “Old men and old women shall again sit in the streets of Jerusalem, each with staff in hand because of their great age. And the streets of the city shall be full of boys and girls playing in its streets" (vv. 4-5). According to Mobley, “Images of paradisiacal Jerusalem also close the second major section of Zechariah (14:6-11)” (ibid., on vv. 4-5). Ben Zvi says, “According to a well-known story in b. Mak. 24b, the certainty that this announcement will be fulfilled was the reason of R. Akiva’s joy at the sight of painful markers of the Roman destruction of Jerusalem. He thought that just as the announced judgment was fulfilled, so will be the announced future glory of the city” (op. cit., on Zech. 8:4). Assurance is given by the LORD through the prophet. “Thus says the LORD of hosts: Even though it seems impossible to the remnant of this people in these days, should it also seem impossible to me, says the LORD of hosts?” (v. 6). To the words, “though it seems impossible,” Mobley compares Gen. 18:14, in reference to the promised birth of Isaac, and Jer. 32:37, where the LORD promises to bring back his exiled people. And the LORD reiterates his promise of restoration. “Thus says the LORD of hosts: I will save my people from the east country and from the west country; and I will bring them to live in Jerusalem. They shall be my people and I will be their God, in faithfulness and in righteousness” (vv. 7-8).

So, on balance, does this reading present a glass that is half empty? Or half full?

Genesis 3:8-15, Presbyterian Tradition

8 They heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden at the time of the evening breeze, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the LORD God called to the man, and said to him, “Where are you?” 10 He said, “I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.” 11 He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?” 12 The man said, “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit from the tree, and I ate.” 13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, “What is this that you have done?” The woman said, “The serpent tricked me, and I ate.” 14 The LORD God said to the serpent,

“Because you have done this,

cursed are you among all animals

and among all wild creatures;

upon your belly you shall go,

and dust you shall eat

all the days of your life.

15 I will put enmity between you and the woman,

and between your offspring and hers;

he will strike your head,

and you will strike his heel.” (Genesis 3:8-15, NRSV)

The following comments are based on those of December 23, 2007 (the Fourth Sunday of Advent, Year Two), and on relevant comments from those on Genesis 3:1-14 from January 10, 2006 (Tuesday in the week of the First Sunday after the Epiphany, Year Two) and January 15, 2008 (Tuesday in the week of the First Sunday after the Epiphany, Year Two).

On the first Sunday after Epiphany (January 10, 2010), Daily Office Lectionary Old Testament readings will begin in Genesis, chapter 1, and over the following six weeks, continue through Genesis, chapter 35. But today’s reading, neither in a daily sequence based on Genesis, nor in a Sunday-to-Sunday Daily Office sequence, perhaps anticipates the later sequence. The story–the LORD God confronting Adam and Eve about their disobedience, and the curse upon the serpent–raises one of the central issues of the entire biblical narrative, the problem of sin and its consequences.

We are told, “They [i.e., Adam and Eve] heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden at the time of the evening breeze, and the man (MdAxAhA%, hā ’ādām) and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God (Myh9lox$ hvhy yn2P4m9, mipp ^enê YHWH ’ ^elōhîm, lit. ‘from the face of the LORD God) among the trees of the garden” (Gen. 3:8). Although we refer to “Adam” as his name in reference to this account, some continue to say “the man” (MdAxAhA%, hā ’ādām) until the definite article is dropped, “Adam” (MdAxA%, ’ādām): Genesis 3:17, “Adam” (NRSV text note a, “the man” in the text; cf. “Adam” TNIV; NJPS); “Adam” (NRSV 4:25; 5:1). Other translations have “Adam” earlier in spite of the definite article (e.g., AV/KJV Gen. 2:19 [margin ‘the man’], 20a, 21, 23, 3:8, etc.), but alternate with translating as “the man” (AV/KJV Gen. 2:8, 15, 16, 18, 22, 25; 3:12, etc.). According to H. F. W. Gesenius, “In a few instances original appellatives have completely assumed the character of real proper names, and are therefore used without the article . . . Moreover, MdAxA Adam from Gn 5:1 onwards (previously in 2:7 etc., MdAxAhA6 the first man); . . . always without the article” (E. Kautzsch and A. E. Cowley, edd., trans., Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, 2^nd English ed., 1910, 18^th impression, 1985, sec. 125 f ).

“But the LORD God called to the man (MdAxAhA%, hā ’ādām, ‘Adam’ AV/KJV), and said to him, ‘Where are you?’ ” (Gen. 3:9). When Adam is confronted, he cannot hide his new-found knowledge of sin, since he has eaten “of the tree of knowledge of good and evil” (2:17). He was afraid to face God, and so responds, “I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself” (3:10). The true part of the serpent’s “half-truth,” “you will be like God, knowing good and evil” (3:5), had come true. The false part of the serpent’s “half-truth” was, of course, “You will not die” (3:4). But God’s interrogation reveals the truth. “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?” (3:11). Adam, of course, “passed the buck.” He blamed Eve. “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit from the tree, and I ate” (v. 12). He was apparently “with her” at the time (v. 6), and could have protested. According to David M. Carr, “The disintegration of earlier connectedness is shown by the hiding of the humans from the LORD God and the tendency of the man to blame the woman (and implicitly the LORD God) for his action. Later interpreters of the story have shown a similar tendency to blame the woman” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Gen. 3:8-13). She in turn blamed the serpent. “Then the LORD God said to the woman, ‘What is this that you have done?’ The woman said, ‘The serpent tricked me, and I ate’ ” (v. 13). According to Jon D. Levenson, “The man lamely attempts to pass the buck to his wife, and thus, also to the God who put her at his side (v. 23). She, with more credibility, blames the serpent (v. 13)” (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, on Gen. 3:8-17).

The serpent is not interrogated, but simply “cursed”: “The LORD God said to the serpent,

‘Because you have done this,

cursed are you among all animals

and among all wild creatures;

upon your belly you shall go,

and dust you shall eat

all the days of your life.

I will put enmity between you and the woman,

and between your offspring and hers;

he will strike your head,

and you will strike his heel’ ” (Gen. 3:14-15, NRSV)

The term “cursed” is not used of the woman (v. 16), nor of the man (vv. 17-19), though it is used of the ground, “cursed is the ground because of you” (v. 17). Neither the pain of childbirth nor the man’s ruling over the woman should be understood as punishments for the woman, nor as God’s prescription for the “order” of human society. They are nothing more than simple predictions as God foresees the tragic breakdown of harmony within human society. David M. Carr agrees, at least with respect to the “order” issue. The man’s “ruling,” far from representing the divine order of human society, is “a tragic reflection” of it’s “disintegration.” He adds,

Though this [i.e. v. 16] is often understood as a “curse” of the woman to pain in childbirth, the word “curse” is not used in these verses. Others have suggested that this text sentences the woman to endless “toil” (not pain) of reproduction, much as the man is condemned in vv. 17-19 to endless toil in food production. The man’s rule over the woman here is a tragic reflection of the disintegration of original connectedness between them. (op. cit., on vv. 16-19)

“The man,” says Levenson, “for having obeyed her rather than God, will toil over unproductive soil all the days of his life, until the ground from which he was take reabsorbs him” (Levenson on vv. 17-19. Levenson adds that “the primal couple have left the magical garden of their childhood and their innocence and entered into the harsh world of adulthood and its painful realities.” I would add that the punishment for sin is death (Rom. 5:12), and though the unfortunate consequences outlined here for the serpent, the woman and the man are related–something of a taste of death, if you will–they are not in and of themselves God’s punishment for human sin. They are unpleasant consequences of the breakdown of the original unity and harmony. In particular, the man’s “ruling” over the woman is not by God’s decree; it is rather one of the unfortunate consequences of human sin. The reciprocal arrangement advocated by Paul, “Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ” (Eph. 5:21), is closer to God’s ideal.

None of the verbs in these words to the woman or the man in verses 16 to 19 is a “weak verb” that would clearly distinguish the jussive, or “command” form from the ordinary imperfect (i.e. future) tense form which ordinarily states a fact about the future. God simply foresees tragic consequences within the human family, which is no more pleasing to him than to the human subjects.

Revelation 5:6-14, Episcopal and Lutheran Traditions

6 Then I saw between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders a Lamb standing as if it had been slaughtered, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth. 7 He went and took the scroll from the right hand of the one who was seated on the throne. 8 When he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell before the Lamb, each holding a harp and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. 9 They sing a new song:

"You are worthy to take the scroll

and to open its seals,

for you were slaughtered and by your blood you ransomed for God

saints from every tribe and language and people and nation;

10 you have made them to be a kingdom and priests serving our God,

and they will reign on earth."

11 Then I looked, and I heard the voice of many angels surrounding the throne and the living creatures and the elders; they numbered myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands, 12 singing with full voice,

"Worthy is the Lamb that was slaughtered

to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might

and honor and glory and blessing!"

13 Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all that is in them, singing,

"To the one seated on the throne and to the Lamb

be blessing and honor and glory and might

forever and ever!"

14 And the four living creatures said, "Amen!" And the elders fell down and worshiped. (Revelation 5:6-14, NRSV)

The following comments are based on relevant comments from those on Revelation 5:1-10 and 5:11-6:11 from October 28 and 29, 2009 (Wednesday and Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 26, Year One), and earlier comments as noted there:

“Then,” says John, “I saw between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders a Lamb (ajrnivon, arnion) standing as if it had been slaughtered, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth” (v. 6). According to Aune, “The image of Jesus as a Lamb who has been slaughtered is a surprising contrast to his designation as a lion (v. 5), perhaps alluding to the Passover sacrifice (1 Cor. 5:7) or the morning and evening sacrifice of a lamb in the temple at Jerusalem” (ibid., on v. 6). When John’s gospel calls Jesus “the Lamb (ajmnovV, amnos) of God who takes away the sin of the world” (Jn. 1:29, cf. v. 36), the term for “lamb” is different. In Revelation, the term ajrnivon (arnion), a “diminutive of ajrhvn (arēn [‘sheep, lamb’]), but no longer felt to be such in NT times. . . . [means] a sheep of any age, sheep, lamb, in our lit. only in imagery, in Rev. a designation of Christ 5:6, 8, 12f; 6:1, 16; 7:9f, 14, 17; 12:11; 13:8; 14:1, 4, 10; 15:3; 17:14; 19:7, 9; 21:9, 14, 22f, 27; 22:1, 3; compare the parody figure 13:11” (Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich [BDAG], A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3^rd ed., 2000, s.v. ajrnivon, arnion). The Lamb of Revelation is a paradox, “standing as if it had been slaughtered” (5:6, cf. vv. 8, 12), but nevertheless the leader of a multitude of the redeemed (7:7-10; 14:1), the conqueror of “the ten horns,” that is, “ten kings” (17:12) who, with “the beast” (v. 13), “will make war on the Lamb,” who “will conquer them, for he is Lord of lords and King of kings” (v. 14).

Early in Revelation the Lamb, who one might think symbolizes weakness, is seen to be the one who is “worthy to open the scroll” (5:4), and throughout the book appears as the leader of the forces of righteousness. “He went and took the scroll from the right hand of the one who was seated on the throne,” says John (5:7). “When he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell before the Lamb, each holding a harp and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints” (v. 8). Those in God’s throne room sing: “You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, / for you were slaughtered and by your blood you ransomed for God / saints from every tribe . . . / you have made them to be a kingdom of priests serving our God, / and they will reign on earth” (vv. 9-10)

Throughout much of the Book of Revelation, the plagues and judgments are brought about by the Lamb’s opening of the seals and the blowing of the trumpets and pouring out of bowls by angels. While the Dragon and the two Beasts have their day (chaps. 12-13), there is never really any doubt that they will be “thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur” (Rev. 20:10).” God is in control from the start to the finish. While the Book of Revelation certainly portrays cosmic conflict between the powers of light and the powers of darkness, there is never really any doubt as to the eventual outcome.

At this point, a multitude of angels and heavenly beings join the singing of praise. John looks and hears “the voice of many angels surrounding the throne and the living creatures and the elders; they numbered myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands” (Rev. 5:11). They were “singing with full voice, ‘Worthy is the Lamb that was slaughtered / to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might / and honor and glory and blessing!” (v. 12). Bruce M. Metzger calls this, “the sevenfold praise of myriads in heaven honoring the sacrificial Lamb” (NOAB, 2^nd ed., 1994, on Rev. 5:11-12). And as if “myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands” were not enough, John hears “every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all that is in them, singing, ‘To the one seated on the throne and to the Lamb / be blessing and honor and glory and might / forever and ever!” (v. 13). Metzger says this is “Universal praise to the Creator and to the Redeemer as equal in majesty” (ibid. on v. 13). The songs of praise conclude with an “Amen!” from “the four living creatures” as “the elders [fall] down and [worship]” (v. 14).

Revelation 12:1-10, Presbyterian Tradition

The Woman and the Dragon

12:1 A great portent appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. 2 She was pregnant and was crying out in birth pangs, in the agony of giving birth. 3 Then another portent appeared in heaven: a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems on his heads. 4 His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. Then the dragon stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, so that he might devour her child as soon as it was born. 5 And she gave birth to a son, a male child, who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron. But her child was snatched away and taken to God and to his throne; 6 and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, so that there she can be nourished for one thousand two hundred sixty days.

Michael Defeats the Dragon

7 And war broke out in heaven; Michael and his angels fought against the dragon. The dragon and his angels fought back, 8 but they were defeated, and there was no longer any place for them in heaven. 9 The great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world-he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.

10 Then I heard a loud voice in heaven, proclaiming,

"Now have come the salvation and the power

and the kingdom of our God

and the authority of his Messiah,

for the accuser of our comrades has been thrown down,

who accuses them day and night before our God. (Revelation 12:1-10, NRSV)

The following comments are based on those of November 4, 2009 (Wednesday in the week of the Sunday closest to November 2, Year One), and earlier comments, for example, those of October 29 and 30, 2008 (Wednesday and Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 26, Year Two), when comments on Revelation 12:1-6 and 7-17 were repeated from December 23, 2007 (the Fourth Sunday of Advent, Year Two), and earlier comments, as noted there:

Following the account of the seventh trumpet which, according to Bruce M. Metzger, “announces the consummation of God’s Kingdom (10:7)” (NOAB, 2^nd ed.1994, on Rev. 11:14-19), John has another vision. “A great portent appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars” (Rev. 12:1). “She was pregnant,” we are told, “and was crying out in birth pangs, in the agony of giving birth” (v. 2). According to Metzger, she “appears to be the heavenly representative of God’s people, first as Israel (from whom Jesus the Messiah was born, v. 5), then as the Christian Church (which is persecuted by the dragon, v. 13)” (ibid., on Rev. 12:1). David E. Aune, while allowing for John’s use of language from non-Judeo-Christian stories, is clear that the vision here is at home in the biblical (Judeo-Christian) tradition about the birth of the Messiah/Christ. “The portent of the woman, the child, and the dragon is an adaptation of the myth of Apollo’s birth understood by the author to point to the birth of Christ” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Rev. 12:1-17). Of the description, “a woman clothed with the sun,” Aune explains, “a cosmic queen (described much like Isis) [is] used as a symbol for both the Israel from whom the Messiah came (v. 5) and the church (vv. 6, 14, 17), widely understood in Catholic thought to symbolize the Blessed Virgin Mary” (ibid., on 12:1).

“Then,” says John, “another portent appeared in heaven: a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems on his heads” (v. 3). This dragon’s “tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth” (v. 4a). “The dragon, says Jean-Pierre Ruiz, “identified in v. 9 as ‘the Devil’ and ‘Satan,’ is Leviathan, the great sea monster of Canaanite tradition and of the Hebrew Bible (Job 40:25; Isa. 27:1), one specification of the primeval watery chaos” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Rev. 12:3). The dragon becomes a serious threat to the woman and her child. “Then the dragon stood before the woman who was about to bear a child,” says John, “so that he might devour her child as soon as it was born” (v. 4b). And John reports that the child is born. “And she gave birth to a son, a male child, who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron” (v. 5a). As noted above, Metzger identifies this child as “Jesus the Messiah.” According to Ruiz, the fact that the child “is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron,” alludes “to Ps. 2:9, originally concerning the king of Israel, and interpreted as referring to a future anointed ruler or messiah (Psalms of Solomon 17:23-24)” (op. cit., on v. 5). But the child is “snatched away and taken to God and to his throne” (v. 5), which prevents the dragon from devouring him, and the woman is also protected: she flees “into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God” (v. 6a); thus, according to Metzger, “the church is sustained by God” (op. cit., on v. 6). The woman is nourished in that place “for one thousand two hundred sixty days” (v. 6b). “The wilderness,” says Ruiz, echoing Metzger, “is a place where God provides refuge and sustenance amidst adversity (e.g., Gen. 21:14-21; Deut. 8:15-16; 29:5; 32:10; 1 Kings 17:1-2.” And he adds that the “one thousand, two hundred sixty days, the equivalent of ‘a time, and times, , and half a time’ (v. 14), ‘forty-two months” (11:2; 13:5), amounts to three and a half years. This symbolic number suggests a period of time limited by divine design” (op. cit., on v. 6). According to Ruiz,

The vision of the woman, the child, and the dragon is rich in symbolism drawn from mythological traditions found in ancient Babylonia, Egypt, Greece, and Rome, as well as in the Hebrew Bible. One well-known version of the story tells of the goddess Leto, pregnant with Apollo, who is menaced by the dragon Python, who pursues her because he knows that Apollo is destined to kill him (Hyginus, Fabulae 140). Here this material is reinterpreted in terms of Jewish traditions and expectations as the story of the birth of the messiah. (op. cit., on Rev. 12:1-17)

One should say, however, that the “Jewish traditions” dominate the background, and contribute to John’s message of Christian victory in the face of diabolical opposition.

The Battle continues on a cosmic scale. “War broke out in heaven; Michael and his angels fought against the dragon” (Rev. 12:7a). According to Bruce M. Metzger, “Michael [is] an archangel and the champion of Israel (Dan. 10:13, 21; 12:1; Jude 9)” (op. cit., on Rev. 12:7). “The dragon and his angels fought back,” says John, “but they were defeated, and there was no longer any place for them in heaven” (v. 7b, 8). John explains, “The great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world–he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him” (v. 9).

Although the dragon and his angels, when thrown down to earth, pose a deadly threat, at this moment the victory in heaven is celebrated. John says he “heard a loud voice in heaven proclaiming,

‘Now have come the salvation and the power

and the kingdom of our God

and the authority of his Messiah,

for the accuser of our comrades has been thrown down,

who accuses them day and night before our God’ ” (Rev. 12:10 NRSV)

The “accuser,” says Metzger alludes to “Job 1:9-11” (ibid., on v. 10). “Satan,” says David E. Aune, “means accuser in Hebrew (Job 1:9-11; Zech. 3:1)” (op. cit., on v. 12). The song of victory continues in heaven.

Matthew 25:14-30, Episcopal and Lutheran Traditions

The Parable of the Talents (Lk 19.11-27)

14 "For it is as if a man, going on a journey, summoned his slaves and entrusted his property to them; 15 to one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away. 16 The one who had received the five talents went off at once and traded with them, and made five more talents. 17 In the same way, the one who had the two talents made two more talents. 18 But the one who had received the one talent went off and dug a hole in the ground and hid his master's money. 19 After a long time the master of those slaves came and settled accounts with them. 20 Then the one who had received the five talents came forward, bringing five more talents, saying, 'Master, you handed over to me five talents; see, I have made five more talents.' 21 His master said to him, 'Well done, good and trustworthy slave; you have been trustworthy in a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.' 22 And the one with the two talents also came forward, saying, 'Master, you handed over to me two talents; see, I have made two more talents.' 23 His master said to him, 'Well done, good and trustworthy slave; you have been trustworthy in a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.' 24 Then the one who had received the one talent also came forward, saying, 'Master, I knew that you were a harsh man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not scatter seed; 25 so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.' 26 But his master replied, 'You wicked and lazy slave! You knew, did you, that I reap where I did not sow, and gather where I did not scatter? 27 Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and on my return I would have received what was my own with interest. 28 So take the talent from him, and give it to the one with the ten talents. 29 For to all those who have, more will be given, and they will have an abundance; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away. 30 As for this worthless slave, throw him into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' (Matthew 25:14-30, NRSV)

On July 19, 2009 (the Sunday closest to July 20, Year One), comments were repeated from July 15, 2008 (Tuesday in the week of the Sunday closest to July 13, Year Two), when comments were repeated from December 21, 2007 (Friday in the week of the Third Sunday of Advent, Year Two), when comments were repeated from July 22, 2007 (the Sunday closest to July 20, Year One), when they were repeated from July 18, 2006 (Tuesday in the week of the Sunday closest to July 13, Year Two), from July 17, 2005 (the Sunday closest to July 20, Year One), and from December 16, 2005 (Friday in the week of the Third Sunday of Advent, Year Two). They are used again here:

As compared with Matthew’s Parable of the Talents (Mt. 25:14-30), Luke’s Parable of the Ten Pounds might seem to deal in “chump change.” The man who received “five talents” (tavlanta, talanta, Mt. 25:15) received the equivalent of a laborer’s wages for seventy-five years (NRSV, text note f on Mt. 25:14), but each of the slaves in Luke’s parable receive one pound (mna:, mna, Lk. 19:13, cf. vv. 16, 18, 20–ten pounds, one for each of ten slaves). The pound represented about three month’s wages for a laborer (NRSV, text note a on Lk. 19:13). Perhaps the intended audience was a consideration. Luke’s Gospel often makes a special place for marginalized people. Another difference is the setting of the parables; the Parable of the Talents is one of three parables which conclude Matthew’s version of the eschatological speech (Mt. chaps. 24, 25), but Luke sets this parable on the approach to Jerusalem as a “corrective” “because they supposed that the kingdom of God was to appear immediately” (Lk. 19:11). Again, the “man going on a journey” in Matthew’s version (Mt. 25:14; cf. Mk. 13:34), is “a nobleman [who] went to a distant country to get royal power for himself and then return” in Luke’s version (Lk. 19:12), a feature which leads many commentaries see the parable as based in part on a historical event. The parable adds that he came back “having received royal power” (v. 15) over the protests of the citizens. “But the citizens of his country hated him and sent a delegation after him, saying, ‘We do not want this man to rule over us’” (v. 14). In the end this king orders the protesters to be slaughtered “in my presence” (v. 27).

This parable is compared with Mark13:34 and Luke 19:11-27 in a separate file, Talents-Pounds. Given the common structure of the situation in Matthew and Luke, there are remarkable similarities. But there are also striking differences, some of which are noted above. In Mark, a man goes “on a journey, when he leaves home and puts his slaves in charge, each with his work,”.commanding “the doorkeeper to be on the watch” (Mk. 13:34). This leads to the admonition, “Therefore, keep awake–for you do not know when the master of the house will come, in the evening, or at midnight, or at cockcrow, or at dawn, or else he may find you asleep when he comes suddenly” (vv. 35-36). But this admonition is not elaborated as a parable comparable to Matthew’s Parable of the Talents or Luke’s Parable of the Pounds. For Matthew and for Mark, these passages essentially close the period of Jesus ministry in Jerusalem before the Passion Narrative. In Matthew, the Parable of the Ten Maidens (Mt. 25:1-13), the Parable of the Talents (vv. 14-30), and the description of the Judgment Scene (vv. 31-46) conclude Jesus’ eschatological speech. Apart from the huge difference in monetary values, the main difference between the parables in Matthew and Luke is the apparent reference to an actual historical situation in Luke’s version.

Dale C. Allison Jr. interprets Matthew’s version of the parable as follows:

Whether or not one uses the word ‘allegory’, [Matthew] 25:14-30 is filled with obvious symbols. The master stands for Jesus, his slaves for the church, whose members have received various responsibilities. The master’s departure represents the departure of the earthly Jesus, and his long absence is the age of the church. His return is the return of the Son of Man. The rewards given to the good slaves stand for heavenly rewards given to the faithful at the great assize, and their joy is that of the messianic banquet. The punishment of the evil slave represents those within the church who, through their sins of omission, condemn themselves to eschatological darkness. Most of this is familiar, but the passage is not otiose. Repetition makes for emphasis. Moreover, new are the notions that Christians have received gifts according to their ability (v. 15) and that it is what they make of those gifts which counts in the end. (The Oxford Bible Commentary, 2001, p. 878, on Mt. 25:14-30)

William Barclay gives the following interpretation of Luke’s version of this parable:

[The parable] tells about a king who went away to receive a kingdom and whose subjects did their best to stop him receiving it. When Herod the Great died in 4 B.C. he left his kingdom divided between Herod Antipas, Herod Philip and Archelaus. That division had to be ratified by the Romans, who were the overlords of Palestine, before it became effective. Archelaus, to whom Judaea had been left, went to Rome to persuade Augustus to allow him to enter into his inheritance, whereupon the Jews sent an embassy of fifty men to Rome to inform Augustus that they did not wish to have him as king. In point of fact, Augustus confirmed him in his inheritance, though without the actual title of king. (The Gospel of Luke, Daily Study Bible, rev. ed., 1975, pp. 236-237, on Lk. 19:11-27)

Barclay adds that “Anyone in Judaea, on hearing the parable, would immediately remember the historical circumstances on which it was based” (ibid.). Scholars differ on whether the Parables of the Talents and the Pounds are two versions of one parable told by Jesus, or different parables from different occasions (cf. I. Howard Marshall, Commentary on Luke, NIGTC, 1978, p. 701, on Lk. 19:11-27). They also differ on the significance. A Jülicher “claimed that the original form of the parable was meant simply to teach a moral lesson about using the gifts which God has given to man” (cited by Marshall, p. 702). Barclay follows a line similar to that: “The parable of the king and his servants illustrates certain great facts of the Christian life,” he says, and lists (1) “the king’s trust” (2) “the king’s test” (3) “the king’s reward” (Barclay, p. 237). Barclay adds that “the parable concludes with one of the inexorable laws of life. To him who has, more will be given; from him who has not, what he has will be taken away” (Barclay, p. 238).

Eric Franklin, however, has trouble with such an interpretation. According to him, “The story line [of Luke’s parable] owes much to the events of 4 B.C. when Archelaus went to Rome to claim his father’s throne and encountered strong resistance” (Eric Franklin, The Oxford Bible Commentary, 2001, p. 951, on Lk.19:11-27). The fact that Archelaus ruled only Judea, and only until A.D. 5 when he was deposed and replaced by Roman Governors like Pilate, Felix and Festus, is not reflected in the parable. Nor should the nobleman be understood as representing Christ (Franklin) as in Dale C. Allison, Jr.’s interpretation of the Parable of the Talents. “That the nobleman-become-king stands for Jesus is made more unlikely by the third servant’s wholly unflattering description of him (v. 21) as rapacious and a fraudster, an assessment that the king does not deny (v. 22)” (ibid.). “The parable therefore is unlikely to be an allegory,” says Franklin,

but is rather, in the words of Evans (1990), ‘another of the risqué parables . . . in which the central figure is a reprehensible character’. In pointing to the demands made by the manner of the Kingdom’s appearing in Jesus, Luke has used this device, not only in the parable of the dishonest steward (16:1-9), but also, and with a close parallel, in that of the importunate widow (18:1-8), where one is encouraged to pray for its coming, and the friend at midnight (11:5-8) where one is told to ask to live out of its power. (op. cit., p. 952)

William Barclay, in reference to Matthew’s parable, draws certain conclusions:

In this parable Jesus tells us that there can be no religion without adventure. But there is much more to this parable than that.

(I) It tells us that God gives men differing gifts. . . .

(ii) It tells us that the reward of work well done is still more work to do. . . .

(iii) It tells us that the man who is punished is the man who will not try.

(iv) It lays down a rule of life that is universally true. It tells us that to him who has more will be given, and he who has not will lose even what he has. (The Gospel of Matthew, The Daily Study Bible Series, rev. ed., vol. 2, pp. 323-324 on Mt. 25:14-30).

John 3:16-21, Presbyterian Tradition

16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.

17 “Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Those who believe in him are not condemned; but those who do not believe are condemned already, because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God. 19 And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. 20 For all who do evil hate the light and do not come to the light, so that their deeds may not be exposed. 21 But those who do what is true come to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that their deeds have been done in God. (John 3:16-21, NRSV)

The following comments are based on those of March 5, 2009 (Thursday in the week of the First Sunday of Lent, Year One), when comments were repeated from August 11, 2008 (Monday in the week of the Sunday closest to August 10, Year Two), when comments on John 3:1-21 were based on earlier comments of January 21 and 22, 2008 (Monday and Tuesday in the week of the Second Sunday after the Epiphany, Year Two), and on earlier comments as noted there.

The reference to “eternal life,” provided by Jesus’ crucifixion and atonement (John 3:14-15, leads into the favorite biblical verse of many, what has been called “the Gospel in a nutshell”: “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life” (Jn. 3:16). It is worth taking note here of the emphasized statement of the source of God’s action. The word translated “so” (Ou{twV, Houtōs) in the phrase, “God so loved the world,” comes first in Greek for emphasis: Ou”twV ga;r hjgavphsen oJ qeo;V to;n kovsmon (houtōs gar ēgapēsin ho theos ton kosmon, “For God so loved the world”). The word for “world” (kovsmoV, kosmos) has a variety of meanings, including “that which serves to beautify through decoration, adornment, adorning,” a “condition of orderliness, orderly arrangement, order,” “the sum total of everything here and now, the world, the (orderly) universe, in philosophical usage.” But more particularly, in the present context (Jn. 3:16), while it can mean “humanity in general, the world” (e.g. Mt. 18:7), the term here is used “of all humanity, but especially of all believers, as the object of God’s love” (Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich [BDAG], 2000, s.v. kovsmoV, kosmos; my emphasis with bold print). The result of such love that God has for all humanity is stated in the next clause: “God so loved (Ou”twV, Houtōs) . . . that (w{ste, hōste) he gave his only son.” The conjunction w{ste (hōste “so that”) introduces “dependent clauses,” as here, “of the actual result” (BDAG, s.v. w{ste, hōste). Raymond E. Brown comments on the word “loved” (hjgavphsen, ēgapēsin). “The aorist [verb tense] implies a supreme act of love. Cf. 1 John iv 9: ‘In this way was God’s love revealed in our midst: God has sent His only Son into the world that we may have life through him.’ Notice that in 1 John the love is oriented toward Christians (‘we’) while in John iii 16 God loves the world” (The Gospel according to John I-XII, Anchor Bible 29, 1966, on Jn. 3:16).

The description here of God’s Son, whom he was moved by love to give, calls for comment. The words (to;n uiJo;n to;n monogenh: (ton huion ton monogenē, (Jn. 3:16; cf. monogenh;V qeovV, monogenēs theos, variant reading, monogenh;V uiJovV, monogenēs huios 1:18) have been variously translated: “his only Son” (NRSV), “his one and only Son” (TNIV), “his only begotten Son” (AV/KJV), and so forth. The word monogenhvV (monogenēs) describes the “only son” of the widow at Nain (Lk. 7:12) whom Jesus raised from death (vv. 11-17), as an example of how the word pertains “to being the only one of its kind within a specific relationship, one and only, only.” But more particularly, as in John’s usage here, it pertains “to being the only one of its kind or class, unique (in kind) of something that is the only example of its category” (BDAG, s.v. monogenhvV, monogenēs). There is none other like Jesus.

The next clause is a statement of purpose, the purpose of God’s giving. He “gave his only son so that [or ‘in order that’ ( i{na, hina) everyone who believes in him may not perish but have eternal life. The expression, “everyone who believes in him” combines the verb pisteuvw (pisteuō), “believe,” and the preposition, “in” or “into,” is one expression with this verb that means “to entrust oneself to an entity in complete confidence, believe (in), trust, with implication of total commitment to the one who is trusted” (BDAG, s.v. pisteuvw, pisteuō). The Lexicon adds that in our literature “God and Christ are objects of this type of faith that relies on their power and nearness to help, in addition to being convinced that their revelations or disclosures are true.” The verb for “perish” (BDAG, s.v. ajpovllumi, apollymi), as used here (middle voice), can be a cry of anguish by sailors in a storm-tossed vessel, but especially, as here in John, of eternal death. But the alternative, for those who believe, is eternal life (a common theme in the Gospel of John, e.g. 3:36; 4:14; 5:24, and so forth).

John 3:16, the “Gospel in a nutshell,” has a paragraph of its own in the New Revised Standard Version. Raymond E. Brown, sees connections backward–“the theme of Jesus’ death” (vv. 14-15)–and forward: “If [v.] 16 assures us that the purpose of the Father’s giving the Son in Incarnation and death was eternal life for the believer, [v.] 17 paraphrases this in terms of salvation for the world” (op. cit., on Jn. 3:16).

The following verses spell out the contrast between the results for those who believe in God’s Son (v. 16), and those who do not. “Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Those who believe in him are not condemned; but those who do not believe are condemned already, because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God” (vv. 17-18). God’s purpose was to provide for those who believe in his Son, not to condemn the rest. But the consequence for those who do not believe is spelled out; they are “condemned already.” The contrast here is explained in terms of light and darkness. “And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil” (v. 19). Not only do some “love darkness,” but “all who do evil hate the light and do not come to the light, so that their deeds may not be exposed” (v. 20). On the other hand, “those who do what is true come to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that their deeds have been done in God” (v. 21)

Brown notes similarities in this “dualistic vocabulary of vss. 19-21 (light/darkness; practicing wickedness/doing truth)” to the dualism of Qumran texts (i.e. Dead Sea Scrolls): “According as man’s inheritance is in truth and righteousness, so he hates evil; but insofar as his heritage is in the portion of perversity, so he abominates truth” (1QS iv 24, cited by Brown, p. 148, on Jn. 3:19-21).

If there is a twofold reaction to Jesus in John, we must emphasize that the reaction is very much dependent on man’s own choice, a choice that is influenced by his way of life, by whether his deeds are wicked or are done in God (vss. 20-21). There is a consistency in the two sides of the dualism: evildoers are disbelievers, while good works and faith go together. Thus, there is no determinism in John as there seems to be in some passages of the Qumran scrolls. . . . the idea is that Jesus brings out what a man really is and the real nature of his life. Jesus is a penetrating light that provokes judgment by making it apparent what a man is. The one who turns away is not an occasional sinner but one who “practices wickedness”; it is not that he cannot see the light, but that he hates the light. (ibid., pp. 148-149, on Jn. 3:1-21)

We need not find ourselves in that last group. “But these [signs/this book] are written so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing you may have life in his name” (Jn. 20:31).

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net