Genesis 3:8-15, Episcopal and Lutheran Traditions

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 on Genesis 3:8-15 are repeated here from December 18, 2009, two days ago, when it was the Presbyterian reading. Reference to previous sources is made there:

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.

1 Samuel 2:1b-10, Presbyterian Tradition (Cp Lk 1.46-55)

This reading is presented in the following table for comparison with Mary’s Song of Praise, the Magnificat:

Given its place within the narrative of 1 Samuel, one is surprised to find the Song of Hannah classified as a “community song of thanksgiving” (Bernard W. Anderson, Out of the Depths; The Psalms Speak for Us Today, 2^nd ed., 1983, p. 236). In chapter 1 she is distressed about her barren condition (1 Sam. 1:5-8, 10-11), but Eli the priest comforts her, “Go in peace; the God of Israel grant the petition you have made to him” (v. 17). So in the course of time a child is born whom she names Samuel, “for she said, ‘I have asked him of the LORD’” (v. 20). So one might expect her song to be an “Individual Song of Thanksgiving” such as Psalms 57, 85, 28 and others (cited by Anderson in chapter 4). Her personal situation of childlessness has been overcome. But the child she has born will be an important leader in Israel, the last judge, and the “king-maker” who anoints two kings, first Saul (1 Sam. 10:1; cf. 11:15). So perhaps it should not be surprising that Hannah’s song has the ring of a Community Song of Thanksgiving. “My heart exults (ClafA, ‘ālats, ‘rejoices’; LXX =Esterewvqh, Estereōthē, ‘is made strong/confirmed’; in the LORD,” she prays; “my strength is exalted (hmArA, rāmāh; LXX uJywvqh, hypsōthē) in my God” (2:1b, c). The thought and tone as Mary begins her Magnificat are similar, but the vocabulary is different. “My soul magnifies (Megaluvnei, Megalynei [Lat., Magnificat]) the Lord, / and my spirit rejoices (hjgallivasen, ēgalliasen) in God my Savior (swth:ri mou, sōtēri mou)” (Lk. 1:46b, 47a). “My mouth derides my enemies,” sings Hannah, “because I rejoice (yT9H4maWA, śāmachtî; LXX eujfravnqhn, euphranthēn, a synonym of hjgallivasen, ēgalliasen, Lk. 1:47) in my victory (j~t,fAUwyB9, bîšû‘ātekā; LXX ejn swthriva/ sou, en sōtēria(i) sou)” (1 Sam. 2;1c, d). There is rejoicing in salvation/victory in both texts.

“There is no Holy One (wOdqA, qādôš; LXX a”gioV, hagios) like the LORD,” sings Hannah, “no one besides you; / there is no Rock (rUc, tsûr) like our God” (1 Sam. 2:2); compare Mary’s lines, “for the Mighty One (oJ duvnatoV, ho dynatos) has done great things for me, / and holy (a”gioV, hagios) is his name” (Lk. 1:49). William L. Holladay says that rUc (tsûr) means “rock = God 1 Sam. 2:2 and often” (A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 1971, 10^th corrected impression 1988, s.v. rUc, tsûr). “Talk no more so very proudly (hhAbog4 hhAbog4 UrBdat4 UBr4Ta-lxa, ’al-tarbû t^edabb^erû g^evōhāh g^evōhāh [sic, repeated word, not so in some mss.]; LXX mh; kauca:sqe kai; mh; lalei:te uJyhlav, mē kauchasthe kai mē laleite hypsēla),” sings Hannah, “let not arrogance (qtAfA, ‘ātāq; LXX megalorrhmovsunh, megalorrēmosynē [= megalorrhmoniva, megalorrēmonia, ‘big talking, LSJ, s.v. both]) come from your mouth; / for the LORD is a God of knowledge, / and by him actions are weighed. / The bows of the mighty are broken, / but the feeble gird on strength (ly9HA, chāyil; LXX duvnamiV, dynamis)” (2 Sam. 2:3-4); compare Mary’s lines, “He has shown strength (kravtoV, kratos) with his arm; / he has scattered the proud (uJperhvfanoi, hyperēphanoi) in the thoughts of their hearts” (Lk. 1:51). Similar thoughts continue with different vocabulary.

“Those who were full have hired themselves out for bread,” sings Hannah, “but those who were hungry (Myb9fer4, r ^e‘ēvîm; LXX oiJ peinw:nteV, hoi peinōntes [cf. Mt. 5:6; Lk. 6:21]) are fat with spoil” (1 Sam. 2:5); cf. Mary’s lines, “he has filled the hungry (peinw:nteV, peinōntes) with good things, / and sent the rich away empty” (Lk. 1:53). Note the same word here in the Septuagint and in Luke for “the hungry.” In Mary’s song any reference to the anticipated childbirth is at most, very indirect, “for he has looked with favor on the lowliness of his servant (hJ douvlh aujtou:, hē doulē autou). / Surely, from now on all generations will call me blessed; / for the Mighty One has done great things for me” (Lk. 1:48, 49a); in Hannah’s, however, she says, “the barren has borne seven, / but she who has many children [Peninnah?] is forlorn” (1 Sam. 2:5c, d).

Hannah’s song continues: “The LORD kills and brings to life; / he brings down to Sheol and raises up. / The LORD makes poor and makes rich; / he brings low, he also exalts” (1 Sam. 2:6-7); cf Mary’s lines, “He has brought down the powerful from their thrones, / and lifted up the lowly” (Lk. 1:52). “He raises up the poor from the dust,” sings Hannah; “he lifts the needy from the ash heap, / to make them sit with princes / and inherit a seat of honor. / For the pillars of the earth are the LORD’s / and on them he has set the world” (1 Sam. 2:8). Steven L. McKenzie says, “God’s concern for the poor and oppressed is a common theme in the Bible” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on 1 Sam. 2:8).

Hannah’s song contrasts the “faithful” and “the wicked”: “He [i.e., God] will guard the feet of his faithful ones, / but the wicked shall be cut off in darkness; / for not by might does one prevail” (1 Sam. 2:9). She even looks beyond the time of Samuel’s service as judge: “The LORD will judge the ends of the earth; / he will give strength to his king, / and exalt the power of his anointed” (v. 10). Mary too perhaps looked beyond the promised childbirth to what her son would do and be for the world at large. “Surely from now on all generations will call me blessed” (Lk. 1:48b).

Revelation 12:1-10, Episcopal and Lutheran Traditions

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 on Revelation 12:1-10 are repeated here from December 18, 2009, two days ago, when it was the Presbyterian reading. Reference to previous sources is made 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.

Titus 2:1-10, Presbyterian Tradition

Instructions about What Titus Must Teach

2:1 But as for you, teach what is consistent with sound doctrine. 2 Tell the older men to be temperate, serious, prudent, and sound in faith, in love, and in endurance.

3 Likewise, tell the older women to be reverent in behavior, not to be slanderers or slaves to drink; they are to teach what is good, 4 so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 to be self-controlled, chaste, good managers of the household, kind, being submissive to their husbands, so that the word of God may not be discredited.

6 Likewise, urge the younger men to be self-controlled. 7 Show yourself in all respects a model of good works, and in your teaching show integrity, gravity, 8 and sound speech that cannot be censured; then any opponent will be put to shame, having nothing evil to say of us.

9 Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back, 10 not to pilfer, but to show complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior. (Titus 2:1-10, NRSV)

The following comments are base on relevant comments on Titus 2:1-15 from February 27, 2009 (Friday in the week of the Last Sunday after the Epiphany, Year One), when comments were repeated from February 23. 2007 (Friday in the week of the Last Sunday after the Epiphany, Year One), when comments were combined with revision and adaptation from February 11, 2005 (Friday after Ash Wednesday in the week of the Last Sunday after the Epiphany, Year One), from comments on Titus 2:1-10 of December 20, 2005 (Tuesday in the week of the Fourth Sunday in Advent, Year Two), and from comments on Titus 2:11-15 selected from comments on 2:11-3:8 from December 21, 2005 (Wednesday in the week of the fourth Sunday in Advent, Year Two):

Paul instructs Titus to promote sound doctrine (Titus 2:15; cf. 1:9) as he did Timothy (1 Tim. 1:3, cf. 4:1-5). He has instructions for the older men (presbuvtai, presbytai, Tit. 2:2, cf. presbuvteroV, presbyteros, 1 Tim. 5:1) and older women (presbuvtideV, presbytides, Tit. 2:3, cf. presbuvterai, presbyteras, 1 Tim. 5:2). The older men are “to be temperate, serious, prudent, and sound in faith, in love, and in endurance” (Tit. 2:2). The older women are “to be reverent in behavior, not to be slanderers or slaves to drink; they are to teach what is good” (v. 3). There is a purpose in this: “so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be self-controlled, chaste, good managers of the household, kind, being submissive to their husbands, so that the word of God may not be discredited” (vv. 4-5). The motive here is not just good for goodness sake, but to live in a manner that will not discredit the Christian community.

There are brief instructions for younger men as well (Tit. 2:6-8; cf. 1 Tim. 5:1). They are to be “self-controlled.” But Titus himself–the “yourself” of verse 7 is singular–is to be “in all respects a model of good works,” perhaps especially as a role model for the younger men. In his teaching he is to “show integrity, gravity, and sound speech that cannot be censured” (vv. 7-8), again for the purpose of not discrediting the Christian community at a time when they were a minority group and, if not yet, soon to come under severe and sustained persecution.

There is also instruction for slaves (Tit. 2:9-10; cf. 1 Tim 6:1-2). While we might wish that Paul could have prevented slavery in his world, he never addresses the issue directly, though he does encourage Philemon to accept Onesimus back “no longer as a slave but more than a slave, a beloved brother” (Philemon 16). The slaves are “to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect” (Tit. 2:9). The slaves “are not to talk back, not to pilfer, but to show complete and perfect fidelity” (vv. 9b, 10a), again not merely for goodness sake, but “so that in everything they may be an ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior” (v. 10b). We note the term “Savior” being applied to God again (cf. 1:3).

There is, of course, intrinsic value in a Christian lifestyle that expresses mutual love and concern among fellow Christians. “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you” (Jn. 15:12). “Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. . . . Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law” (Romans 13:8, 10). But one has a sense that the reading from Titus, perhaps especially in some of the details, is being as sensitive to how the Christian community appears to the world at large, the Roman Empire, as it is to how Christian love and respect would function in an ideal world.

John 3:16-21 (Episcopal and Lutheran Traditions)

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 on John 3:16-21 are repeated here from December 18, 2009, two days ago, when it was the Presbyterian reading. Reference to previous sources is made 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).

Luke 1:26-38, Presbyterian Tradition

The Annunciation

26 In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town in Galilee called Nazareth, 27 to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin's name was Mary. 28 And he came to her and said, "Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you." 29 But she was much perplexed by his words and pondered what sort of greeting this might be. 30 The angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And now, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will name him Jesus. 32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his ancestor David. 33 He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end." 34 Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I am a virgin?" 35 The angel said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called Son of God. 36 And now, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son; and this is the sixth month for her who was said to be barren. 37 For nothing will be impossible with God." 38 Then Mary said, "Here am I, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your word." Then the angel departed from her. (Luke 1:26-38, NRSV)

The following comments are based on those of December 24, 2008 (Wednesday in the week of the Fourth Sunday of Advent, Year One), when comments were repeated from December 21, 2008, when comments were based with editing and supplement on those of December 21, 2006 (Thursday in the week of the Third Sunday of Advent, Year One, ref. for Dec. 21), when comments were used from December 22, 2004 (Wednesday in the week of the Fourth Sunday of Advent, Year One) and from December 20, 2005 (Tuesday in the week of the Fourth Sunday of Advent, Year Two); they are also based on those of December 22, 2004, (Wednesday in the week of the Fourth Sunday of Advent, Year One), when comments were also used from December 20, 2005.

The reading from Luke presents the Annunciation: the angel Gabriel visits Mary and announces the coming events, her conception (Lk. 1:31), when “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you” (v. 35), and the birth of Jesus (v. 31). The time is set “in the sixth month,” which would be six months after the conception of John, the child promised earlier to Zachariah and Elizabeth (vv. 13-20). We note that “after those days,” that is, after Zechariah’s time of service in the temple when he was told of the coming birth of John, “his wife Elizabeth conceived, and for five months she remained in seclusion (v. 24). So, a month later, the angel Gabriel, who had visited Zechariah and informed him about John’s coming birth (vv. 11-20), now comes to Mary. “In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town in Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin (parqevnoV, parthenos, cf. Isa. 7:14 LXX) engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin’s name was Mary” (vv. 26-27). David L. Tiede, revised by Christopher Matthews, says, “Virgin emphasizes Mary’s youth and underlines the divine origin of Jesus (vv. 34-35; see also Isa. 7:14; Mt. 1:20-23).” Tiede and Matthews add that “Jesus’ royal lineage is traced through Joseph to David (see 2:4; 3:23; 2 Sam. 7:12; 1 Chr. 17:11)” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Lk. 1:27). The angel, we are told, “came to her [i.e., to Mary] and said “Greetings (Cai:re, Chaire), favored one (kecaritwmevnh, kecharitōmenē)! The Lord is with you’ ” (v. 28). Gabriel uses a common greeting, Cai:re (Chaire), defined as “welcome, good day, hail (to you), I am glad to see you (Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich [BDAG], A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3^rd ed., 2000, s.v. caivrw, chairō, meaning no. (2) ). Jesus used this greeting, Caivrete (Chairete, 2^nd person plural) when he met the two Marys returning from the tomb (Mt.28:9). It’s ironic–to say the least–that Judas, when betraying Jesus, used the same greeting, “Greetings (Cai:re, Chaire), Rabbi!” (Mt. 26:49), and that the Roman soldiers mocked him with it, saying “Hail (Cai:re, Chaire), King of the Jews!” (Mt. 27:29). Gabriel’s other word, describing Mary as “favored,” is used twice in the New Testament. Paul says that God “destined us for adoption as his children through Jesus Christ, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace (cavritoV, charitos, gen. of cavriV, charis) that he freely bestowed (ejcarivtwsen, echaritōsen) on us in the Beloved” (Eph. 1:5-6). The verb means “to cause to be the recipient of a benefit, bestow favor on, favor highly, bless, in our literature only with reference to the divine cavriV [charis, ‘grace’]” (BDAG, s.v. caritovw, charitoō ). So the perfect passive participle, as applied to Mary, means that she is the recipient of divine favor, “highly favored, blessed.”

We are not informed that Mary was fearful at the appearance of the angel (cf. Zachariah, v. 12), but “she was much perplexed (dietaravcqh, dietarachthē) by his words and pondered what sort of greeting this might be” (v. 29). The word translated “was much perplexed” occurs only here in the New Testament. The verb means “confuse, perplex (greatly),” and in the passive form in Luke 1:29 the phrase means “she was greatly perplexed at the saying” (BDAG, s.v. diataravssw, diatarassō ). Gabriel, perhaps anticipating a fearful reaction, reassures her: “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor (cavriV, charis) with God” (v. 30). And Gabriel explains: “And now, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will name him Jesus” (v. 31). Jesus ( =Ihsou:V, Iēsous) is the Greek form of “Joshua” (f1UwOhy4 or f1wuOhy4, y ^ehôšûa‘ or y ^ehôšua‘ ); the word =Ihsou:V (Iēsous) in Hebrews 4:8 actually means the Joshua of the Hebrew Bible, the successor of Moses and leader of Israel in the book of Joshua. Marion Lloyd Soards says, “Jesus [is] the Greek form of the Hebrew name Joshua, meaning ‘God has saved’ (see Mt. 1:21)” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Lk. 1:31). “He [i.e., Mary’s child to be, Jesus] will be great,” says Gabriel, “and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his ancestor David” (v. 32). “The Son of the Most High,” says Soards, “implies both divinity (see Sir. 4:10) and royal authority (see 2 Sam. 7:13-16; cf. Lk. 2:35, 76; 6:35; 8:28; Acts 7:48; 16:7)” (ibid., on v. 32). Gabriel continues, “He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end” (v. 33). According to Tiede and Matthews, “His [i.e., Jesus’] kingdom with no end is the fulfillment of the promise to David (2 Sam. 7:16; 1 Chr. 17:14; Isa. 9:7; see also Dan. 7:14)” (op. cit., on v. 33).

At this point, if not already, Mary must have had many questions. She asks, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?” (v. 34). The last phrase of her question is literally, “I do not know a man” (NRSV text note b). According to Tiede and Matthews, “Mary’s question, unlike Zechariah’s (see note on 1:18), is not taken as doubt (see vv. 38, 45)” (ibid., on v. 34). In the earlier note, Tiede and Matthews say, “Zechariah’s question [1:18] expresses doubt (see also Sarah in Gen. 18:12-14; cf. Mary in v. 34), though as a priest he should perhaps recall the biblical precedents pertinent to his situation” (ibid., on v. 18).

Gabriel’s response explains what we have come to call “the virgin birth,” but which some say we should call “the virgin conception.” “The Holy Spirit will come upon ( ejpeleuvsetai ejpiv, epeleusetai epi) you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called Son of God” (v. 35). “This verse, interprets what is said in vv. 31-33,” say Tiede and Matthews. “Luke uses come upon to describe to describe the action of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost in Acts 1:8. . . . This holy Son of God, i.e., conceived apart from natural means, surpasses David and his royal heirs, who were adopted sons of God (Ps. 2:7)” (ibid., on v. 35). Gabriel also tells Mary of Elizabeth’s good news. “And now, your relative Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son; and this is the sixth month for her who was said to be barren” (v. 36). This is a miracle in itself, given Elizabeth’s “old age.” When Gabriel says, “For nothing will be impossible with God” (v. 37), he perhaps uses the miracle of Elizabeth’s conception to encourage Mary, who, without hesitation or shrinking from the thought, says, “Here am I, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your word,” at which point “the angel departed from her” (v.38). We would all do well to respond to the Lord’s callings and promptings as Mary did on this occasion.

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net