2 Samuel 7:1-17, Episcopal and Lutheran Traditions

7:1 Now when the king was settled in his house, and the LORD had given him rest from all his enemies around him, 2 the king said to the prophet Nathan, "See now, I am living in a house of cedar, but the ark of God stays in a tent." 3 Nathan said to the king, "Go, do all that you have in mind; for the LORD is with you."

4 But that same night the word of the LORD came to Nathan: 5 Go and tell my servant David: Thus says the LORD: Are you the one to build me a house to live in? 6 I have not lived in a house since the day I brought up the people of Israel from Egypt to this day, but I have been moving about in a tent and a tabernacle. 7 Wherever I have moved about among all the people of Israel, did I ever speak a word with any of the tribal leaders of Israel, whom I commanded to shepherd my people Israel, saying, "Why have you not built me a house of cedar?" 8 Now therefore thus you shall say to my servant David: Thus says the LORD of hosts: I took you from the pasture, from following the sheep to be prince over my people Israel; 9 and I have been with you wherever you went, and have cut off all your enemies from before you; and I will make for you a great name, like the name of the great ones of the earth. 10 And I will appoint a place for my people Israel and will plant them, so that they may live in their own place, and be disturbed no more; and evildoers shall afflict them no more, as formerly, 11 from the time that I appointed judges over my people Israel; and I will give you rest from all your enemies. Moreover the LORD declares to you that the LORD will make you a house. 12 When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come forth from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me. When he commits iniquity, I will punish him with a rod such as mortals use, with blows inflicted by human beings. 15 But I will not take my steadfast love from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you. 16 Your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me; your throne shall be established forever. 17 In accordance with all these words and with all this vision, Nathan spoke to David. (2 Samuel 7:1-17, NRSV)

The following comments on 2 Samuel 7:1-17 are repeated here from December 21, 2009, two days ago, when it was the Presbyterian reading. Reference to previous sources is made there:

After “all the elders of Israel” make David king over all Israel (2 Sam. 5:3, cf. vv. 1-5), he conquers Jerusalem (vv. 6-11), decisively defeats the Philistines (vv. 17-25), and he brings the ark to Jerusalem (chap. 6)–thus effectively making Jerusalem both his political capital and his religious capital. He is given the promise of an everlasting kingdom (7:13, 16). The more immediate concerns are resolved, at least for the moment, and there is opportunity for the long-range view. “Now when the king was settled in his house, and the LORD had given him rest from all his enemies around him,” says the narrator (2 Sam. 7:1), “the king said to the prophet Nathan, ‘See now, I am living in a house of cedar, but the ark of God stays in a tent’ ” (v. 2). The statement about the LORD giving David “rest from all his enemies around” (v. 1) “really only makes sense after chapter 8 or chapter 12,” says Hans Wilhelm Hertzberg; “Chronicles therefore carefully omits it (1 Chron. 17:1)” (trans. J. S. Bowden, I & II Samuel, The Old Testament Library, 1964, p. 184, on 2 Sam. 7:1; cf. Steven L. McKenzie, NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on 2 Sam. 7:1). Hertzberg adds that the presence of this statement “here is meant to show that the king’s plan to build the temple, and above all the promise evoked as a result, is the conclusion and crown of the whole” (loc. cit.).

At first, Nathan immediately approves the plan that David has not yet stated. “Go, do all that you have in mind,” he says; “for the LORD is with you” (v. 3). But he is soon brought up short, for “that same night the word of the LORD came to Nathan: Go and tell my servant David: Thus says the LORD: Are you the one to build me a house to live in?” (vv. 4-5). The prophet speaks for the LORD: “I have not lived (yT9b4wayA, yāšavtî) in a house (ty9baB4, b^evayith) since the day I brought up the people of Israel from Egypt to this day, but I have been moving about in a tent (lh,xoB4, be’ōhel) and a tabernacle (NKAw4m9b4U, ûv^emiškān)” (v. 6). And the LORD continues, “Wherever I have moved about among all the people of Israel, did I ever speak a word with any of the tribal leaders of Israel, whom I commanded to shepherd my people Israel, saying, ‘Why have you not built me a house of cedar (Myz9rAx3 tyBe, bêth ’ ^arāzîn)?’ ” (v. 7). According to McKenzie, “The house (‘bayit’) David proposes to build is a temple. The LORD says instead (v. 11) that he will build David a house (‘bayit’), that is, a dynasty. The claim in vv. 6-7 that the LORD has never had a house (i.e., temple) seems to overlook the temple in Shiloh (1 Sam. 1-3)” (on vv. 5-7). But, according to Hertzberg, the “compiler” knows what he is about.

It seems remarkable here that the Lord claims that not since the Exodus from Egypt, i.e. never, has he dwelt in a house, when there were well-built houses at least in Shiloh, and even later, to hold the ark. As the compiler, of course, realized this, the only real way of interpreting the sentence is to make a distinction here between yāšab [bwayA], dwell permanently, abide, and šākan [NkawA], make a temporary stay. The tent-dwelling in the wilderness is here (and often) called miškān [NkAw4m9, noun related to the verb šākan, NkawA], dwelling in the latter sense, and even the stay at Shiloh appears to be regarded merely as an episode in a series of temporary stopping-places. (Hertzberg, p. 285, on 2 Sam. 7:4-7)

Shimon Bar-Efrat says, “In Shiloh, however, there was a House of the LORD (1 Sam. 1:7, 9). But there was also a Tent (Josh. 18:1; 1 Sam. 2:22), which symbolized the idea that the LORD is not restricted to one fixed place” (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, p. 631, on 2 Sam. 7:6). Hertzberg sees the passage here as

an expression of the original and theologically legitimate view that the Lord is not bound to one place, but can make his dwelling anywhere. This, in the basic monotheistic conception, is what befits him. We could find in this passage the background to much of the prophetic polemic against the temple liturgy, just as in the New Testament also the worship of God in temples is regarded as a stage to be superseded (John 4:21; Acts 7:48f.; 17:24). The preservation of this trend of thought, despite the later construction of the temple, speaks for its age. In particular, in true prophetic fashion, the adornment of the future temple by cedar-wood is rejected. (loc. cit.)

The prophet Nathan, speaking for the LORD, redirects the focus from David’s desire to build a temple to Israel’s future and the LORD’s intention to build David’s “house,” that is, dynasty. To David’s implied question, stated by Nathan, “why have you not built me a house of cedar?” (2 Sam. 7:7 at the end), the Lord’s response first rehearses David’s history with him. “Now therefore thus you shall say to my servant David: Thus says the LORD of hosts: I took you from the pasture, from following the sheep to be prince over my people Israel; and I have been with you wherever you went, and have cut off all your enemies from before you” (vv. 8, 9a). On the phrase, “following the sheep,” McKenzie refers to 1 Sam. 17:15, 34, and adds, “Kings in the ancient Near East were often described as shepherds; see 24:17; 1 Chr. 11:2; Ps. 78:70; Isa. 44:28,” and on the term “prince” (dyg9n!, nāgîd), he gives the sense “king designate” and notes that it was translated “ruler” in 5:2” (on v. 8). Then the word from the LORD turns to the future: “I will make for you a great name, like the name of the great ones of the earth. And I will appoint a place for my people Israel and will plant them, so that they may live in their own place, and be disturbed no more; and evildoers shall afflict them no more, as formerly, from the time that I appointed judges over my people Israel; and I will give you rest from all your enemies” (vv. 9b-11a). By “place,” according to P. Kyle McCarter, is meant “not the promised land, in which Israel is already living, but the place where the Lord chooses to be worshiped (see Deut. 12:5, 11, 14, 18, 21, 26), i.e., the temple in Jerusalem” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on 2 Sam. 7:10).

At this point we come to the main point. In this chapter, the word ty9Ba (bayith), construct form tyBe (bêth), “house” is used in four meanings. David now lives in his “house” (palace) (7:1, 2) and wants to build the LORD’s “house” (temple) (vv. 5, 6, 7, 13). But the LORD will establish David’s “house” (dynasty) (vv. 11, 16, 19, 25, 26, 27, 29), which honor’s David’s “house” (family status) (v. 18) (cf. William F. Stinespring, NOAB, 2nd ed., on chap. 7; cf. also Bar-Efrat, op. cit., on 7:1-29). David’s son will continue David’s dynasty. “When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come forth from your body, and I will establish his kingdom” (v. 12). God will “establish the throne of his kingdom forever” (v. 13). Even “when he commits iniquity,” though God “will punish him” (v. 14), God says, “I will not take my steadfast love from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you” (v. 15).

The covenant with Israel under Moses was conditional. “If you will diligently observe this entire commandment that I am commanding you, loving the LORD your God, walking in all his ways, and holding fast to him, then the LORD will drive out all these nations before you, and you will dispossess nations larger and mightier than yourselves” (Deut. 11:22-23). “See, I am setting before you today a blessing and a curse: the blessing, if you obey the commandments of the LORD your God that I am commanding you today; and the curse, if you do not obey the commandments of the LORD your God, but turn from the way that I am commanding you today, to follow other gods that you have not known” (Deut. 11:26-28).

If we look ahead to the summary of Solomon’s life (1 Kings, chap. 12), it would seem that he fits the pattern of rejecting God anticipated by Deuteronomy. To David the LORD says, “Your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me; your throne shall be established forever” (1 Sam. 7:16). The significance of this promise is underscored by the reminder that it was revealed to Nathan by the LORD in a vision: “In accordance with all these words and with all this vision, Nathan spoke to David” (v. 17).

David’s house includes Solomon, Ahaz, Hezekiah, Manasseh, Josiah, and the other kings of Judah. And though his dynasty appears to come to an end in the sixth century B.C. with the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem and the exile of its inhabitants, hope lives on in the fate of King Jehoiachin (2 Kgs. 25:27-30), in Zerubbabel (Hag. 1:12, 14; Zech. 4:6-7). For Jews this hope remained alive in the Messianic expectations, and Christians see David’s dynasty as extending to the kingdom of Christ, who “will reign forever and ever” (Rev. 11:15).

From Dec. 23, 2007, via Dec. 20, 2009

Jeremiah 31:10-14, Presbyterian Tradition

10 Hear the word of the LORD, O nations,

and declare it in the coastlands far away;

say, "He who scattered Israel will gather him,

and will keep him as a shepherd a flock."

11 For the LORD has ransomed Jacob,

and has redeemed him from hands too strong for him.

12 They shall come and sing aloud on the height of Zion,

and they shall be radiant over the goodness of the LORD,

over the grain, the wine, and the oil,

and over the young of the flock and the herd;

their life shall become like a watered garden,

and they shall never languish again.

13 Then shall the young women rejoice in the dance,

and the young men and the old shall be merry.

I will turn their mourning into joy,

I will comfort them, and give them gladness for sorrow.

14 I will give the priests their fill of fatness,

and my people shall be satisfied with my bounty,

says the LORD. (Jeremiah 31:10-14, NRSV)

The following comments are based on those of December 23, 2007 (the Fourth Sunday of Advent, Reference for December 23, Year Two), when comments were repeated from December 23, 2005 (Friday in the week of the Fourth Sunday of Advent, Year Two; Presbyterian ref. for December 23).

These lines from Jeremiah come from what Victor R. Gold and William L. Holladay have called the “Book of Consolation” (Jer. 30:1-31:40). They add that today’s reading describes a “homecoming. God will assemble the dispersed in their homeland (Isa. 35:5-10; Ps. 23:2-3)” (NOAB, 2^nd ed., 1994, on Jer. 30:1-31:40, and on 31:7-14; cf. Mark E. Biddle, NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Jer. 30:1-31:37 and on 31:7-14). The reading proper (Jer. 31:10-14) follows what Leo G. Perdue, revised by Robert R. Wilson, calls an “oracle of salvation [in which] Israel’s return from the Diaspora is praised in hymnic celebration (see Second Isaiah, i.e., Isa. 40-55)” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Jer. 31:7-9). The LORD calls upon the people to “proclaim, give praise, and say, / ‘Save, O LORD, your people, / the remnant of Israel’ ” (Jer. 31:7d, e, f). The praise is to be for gathering the exiled people “from the land of the north, . . . from the farthest parts of the earth [including] the blind and the lame/ those with child and those in labor, together; / a great company” (v. 8). According to Marvin A. Sweeney, the reference to gathering Israel from the northland recalls both the exile of northern Israel to Mesopotamia, which requires travel to the north, and Jeremiah’s warnings of an enemy from the north (chs. 2-6)” (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, on Jer. 31:8). “With weeping they shall come,” says the LORD, “and with consolations I will lead them back, / I will let them walk by brooks of water, / in a straight path in which they shall not stumble; / for I have become a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn” (v. 9). Perdue and Wilson say, “Father, a common metaphor for God in the Hebrew Bible (see esp. Jer. 3:19; 31:20; Hos. 11:1). Israel is designated as the Lord’s firstborn, a designation of election (Ex. 4:22). In Israel the firstborn was privileged with a double share of the father’s estate, received the paternal blessing, and succeeded him in authority” (op. cit., on v. 9). “As Ephraim is restored,” say Gold and Holladay, “so is all Israel (including Judah; 2:3; 3:19)” (op. cit., on vv. 7-14; cf. Biddle, op. cit., on vv. 7-14).

Today’s reading proper presents another oracle, marked at the beginning with the words, “Hear the word of the LORD (hvhy-rbaD4, d ^evar YHWH),” and at the end with “says the LORD (hvhy-Mxun4, n ^e’um)” (Jer. 31:10a, 14:c). “Hear the word of the LORD, O nations,” says Jeremiah, “and declare it in the coastlands far away; / say, ‘He who scattered Israel will gather him, / and will keep him as a shepherd a flock.’ / For the LORD has ransomed Jacob, / and has redeemed him from hands too strong for him” (vv. 10-11). Gold and Holladay say, “Praises to God will be raised far (coastlands, Ps. 72:10-11; Isa. 41:1, 5), and near for deliverance (shepherd, Isa. 40:11; redeemed, Isa. 48:20)” (op. cit., on vv. 10-11; cf. Biddle, op. cit., on vv. 10-11). The return is describe as joyful, even exuberant. “They shall come and sing aloud on the height of Zion, / and they shall be radiant over the goodness of the LORD, / over the grain, the wine, and the oil, / and over the young of the flock and the herd; / their life shall become like a watered garden, / and they shall never languish again” (v. 12). Sweeney says, “The portrayal of the land as a watered garden full of bounty contrasts with the arid wilderness and draws on traditions of God as creator and provider of rain and agricultural produce” (op. cit., on v. 12). “Then,” continues the oracle, “shall the young women rejoice in the dance, / and the young men and the old shall be merry. / I will turn their mourning into joy, / I will comfort them, and give them gladness for sorrow” (v. 13). So the rejoicing will continue. “I will give the priests their fill of fatness, / and my people shall be satisfied with my bounty, / says the LORD” (v. 14). According to Gold and Holladay, “Bountiful produce of the land will mark trhe new age of well-being (Isa. 58:11)” (op. cit., on v. 14; cf. Biddle, op. cit., on v. 14). “Exiles rejoice as they return,” say Perdue and Wilson. This is “another oracle of salvation in which Israel returns from exile and in Jerusalem praises God for many blessings. The lamentation during periods of peril will turn into thanksgiving” (op. cit.., on vv. 10-14).

Titus 2:11-3:8a, Episcopal and Lutheran Traditions

11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all, 12 training us to renounce impiety and worldly passions, and in the present age to live lives that are self-controlled, upright, and godly, 13 while we wait for the blessed hope and the manifestation of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. 14 He it is who gave himself for us that he might redeem us from all iniquity and purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds.

15 Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one look down on you.

Maintain Good Deeds

3:1 Remind them to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work, 2 to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show every courtesy to everyone. 3 For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, despicable, hating one another. 4 But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but according to his mercy, through the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit. 6 This Spirit he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. 8 The saying is sure. (Titus 2:11-3:8a, NRSV)

The following comments on Titus 2:11-3:8a, are repeated here from December 21, 2009, two days ago, when it was the Presbyterian reading. Reference to previous sources is made there:

Much of Paul’s instruction to Titus in chapter two, is about what to teach. Before his exhortation to “declare these things, exhort and reprove with all authority” (Tit. 2:15), he provides a theological basis for such living. “For the grace (hJ cavriV, hē charis, feminine noun) of God has appeared, bringing salvation (swthvrioV, sōtērios) to all, training (paideuvousa, paideuousa, feminine participle) us to renounce impiety and worldly passions” (vv. 11, 12a). Margaret M. Mitchell says, “The grace of God has appeared (lit. ‘been manifested’) [means] in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ (cf. 3:4)” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Tit. 2:11). “Bringing salvation” translates the adjective swthvrioV (sōtērios), which could be masculine or feminine, but the parallel with the feminine participle paideuvousa (paideuousa) shows that it is “the grace (hJ cavriV, hē charis) of God” that both brings salvation and trains us to renounce impiety and worldly passions. And further, the training is “to live lives that are self-controlled, upright, and godly” (v. 12b).

Paul’s sentence continues describing the Christian hope: “while we wait for the blessed hope and the manifestation ( ejpifavneia, epiphaneia) of the glory of our great God (qeovV, theos) and Savior (swthvr, sōtēr), Jesus Christ” (v. 13). The reference here to Jesus as “our great God and Savior” has been questioned. Jouette M. Bassler says, “NT writings rarely speak of Christ as God (but see Jn. 20:28; Heb. 1:8). This text may do so, but the translation given in textual note b, which does not refer to Christ as God, is equally possible. Elsewhere in these Letters [i.e., the Pastoral Epistles] Jesus’ humanity is stressed (see 1 Tim. 2:5)” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Tit. 2:13). It may be surprising to some that the translation, “of the great God and our Savior” (NRSV text note b), which distinguishes “the great God” from “our Savior, Jesus Christ,” is found in the Authorized (King James) Version (cf. the American Standard Version of 1901), but not in most modern translations (e.g. RSV, NRSV, NIV, TNIV, NKJV [contrast AV/KJV], NASV [contrast ASV], English Standard Version, New Living Translation and others).

The issue here is not a matter of manuscripts with different wording, but of understanding the grammar of the Greek phrasing. Daniel B. Wallace accuses many respected New Testament Greek grammarians of failing to properly understand the implications of what is called “the Granville Sharp Rule,” which he defines, saying, “In Greek, when two nouns are connected by kaiv [kai, ‘and’] and the article [i.e., definite article, the Greek equivalent of ‘the’] precedes only the first noun, there is a close connection between the two. . . . At the highest level it may indicate identity” (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 1995, p. 270). He concludes a long section on this issue by saying,

Sharp’s rule has . . . been misunderstood, the net effect being to lessen certainty as to its value in christologically pregnant texts. It has been applied only with great hesitation to Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet. 1:1 by Trinitarians in the past two centuries. However, a proper understanding of the rule shows it to have the highest degree of validity within the NT. Consequently, these two passages are as secure as any in the canon when it comes to identifying Christ as qeovV [theos = ‘God’]. (ibid., p. 290, cf. pp. 272, 273, 276, 735)

Frederick William Danker defines the word translated “manifestation” here as an “ ‘extraordinary coming into view’ appearing, appearance, probably with connotation of splendor” (The Concise Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 2009, s.v. ejpifavneia, epiphaneia). While the term can refer to the coming of Christ as Savior (2 Tim. 1:9b-10), it can refer specifically to the future “coming” (parousiva, parousia) of Christ in glory, as in, “annihilating him [i.e., ‘the lawless one,’ 2 Thess. 2:3] by the manifestation ( ejpifavneia, epiphaneia) of his coming (parousiva, parousia)” (2 Thess. 2:8; cf. 1 Tim. 6:14), and so here. “Where Paul speaks of Christ’s ‘coming’ (Greek parousia; see 1 Cor 15:23; 1 Thess. 4:15),” says Bassler, these Letters borrow the terminology of the imperial cult and speak of his manifestation (Greek epiphaneia)” (loc. cit.). She sums up a bit: “Two appearances or manifestations of Jesus mark God’s plan of salvation: the incarnation is a manifestation of God’s grace (see also 3:4; 1 Tim. 3:16; 2 Tim. 1:10) and the parousia, or Second Coming, is a manifestation of God’s glory (see also 1 Tim. 6:14)” (ibid., on vv. 11-13).

“He it is,” says Paul [with reference to Christ], who gave himself for us that he might redeem ( lutrwvshtai, lytrōtēsai, aorist tense, middle voice, subjunctive mood of lutrovw, lytroō, ‘to redeem, ransom’) us from all iniquity and purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds” (Tit. 2:14). For the words “who gave himself,” Mitchell refers to “Gal. 1:4; 2:20; Eph. 5:2; 1 Tim. 2:6” (op. cit., on v. 14). “Redeem us,” she says, means “buy [us] back from slavery (Rom. 3:24; 1 Cor. 1:30; 6:20; 7:23; Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:114; cf. Mk. 10:45)” (ibid.). “Declare these things,” says Paul to Titus; “exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one look down on you” (Tit. 2:15; cf. 1 Tim. 4:12).

These instructions continue in chapter three. “Remind them to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work, to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show every courtesy to everyone” (3:1-2). William Barclay finds here “six qualifications for the good citizen” in Titus 3:1-2: The good citizen is (1) law-abiding, (2) active in service, (3) careful in speech, (4) tolerant, (5) kind, (6) gentle (The Letters to Timothy, Titus and Philemon, The Daily Study Bible, 2^nd ed., 1960, pp. 296-297, on Tit. 3:2). “Qualities like these are only possible for the Christian,” says Barclay, “for they are only possible for the man in whose heart Christ reigns supreme. The welfare of any community depends on the acceptance by the Christians within it of the duty of demonstrating to all the world the nobility of Christian citizenship” (ibid., pp. 297-298).

Paul directs Titus to remind the people of Crete that they were once like their non-Christian neighbors. “For we ourselves,” he says, “were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, despicable, hating one another” (v. 3). But God has provided a remedy for such conditions, described here in what Mitchell has called “a tight creedal formulation, perhaps from an early hymn” (op. cit., on 3:4-7):

But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but according to his mercy, through the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit. This Spirit he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. (Titus 3:4-7, NRSV)

This passage is one of the “sure sayings” (v. 8a; cf. 1 Tim. 1:15; 3:1; 4:9; 2 Tim. 2:8). We note here the paired expressions, “God our Savior” (v. 4) and “Jesus Christ our Savior” (v. 6; cf. comments on 2:13, above). Barclay lists seven “outstanding facts about the work of Christ for men [and women]” in this passage (vv. 3-7):

(1) What Jesus did for us is that he put us in a new relationship with God.

(2) This love and grace of God are gifts which no man could ever have earned or achieved; they can only be accepted in perfect trust and awakened love.

(3) This love and grace of God are mediated . . . through the church.

(4) . . . but the essential power behind it all is the power of the Holy Spirit.

(5) The effect of all this is threefold. It brings forgiveness for past sins.

(6) But the effect . . . is also present life.

(7) And lastly, there enters into life the hope of greater things. . . . The Christian is the man [or woman] who knows the wonder of past sin forgiven, the thrill of present life lived with Christ, and the hope of the greater life which is yet to be. (op. cit., pp. 299-302)

Paul gives some final admonitions to Titus. “I desire,” he says, “that you insist on these things, so that those who have come to believe in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works; these things are excellent and profitable to everyone” (v. 8b). Paul also gives a further warning against the teachings of the opponents. “But avoid stupid controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. After a first and second admonition, have nothing more to do with anyone who causes divisions, since you know that such a person is perverted and sinful, being self-condemned” (vv. 9-11). Mitchell calls this a “condemnatory attitude toward the opponents,” and compares 1 Timothy 6:3-5 (op. cit., on vv. 9-11).

Galatians 3:15-22, Presbyterian Tradition

The Promise to Abraham (Cp Gen 12.1-3)

15 Brothers and sisters, I give an example from daily life: once a person’s will has been ratified, no one adds to it or annuls it. 16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring; it does not say, “And to offsprings,”as of many; but it says, “And to your offspring,” that is, to one person, who is Christ. 17 My point is this: the law, which came four hundred thirty years later, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise. 18 For if the inheritance comes from the law, it no longer comes from the promise; but God granted it to Abraham through the promise.

The Purpose of the Law

19 Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring would come to whom the promise had been made; and it was ordained through angels by a mediator. 20 Now a mediator involves more than one party; but God is one.

21 Is the law then opposed to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could make alive, then righteousness would indeed come through the law. 22 But the scripture has imprisoned all things under the power of sin, so that what was promised through faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. (Galatians 3:15-22, NRSV)

The following comments are repeated here from January 30, 2009 (Friday in the week of the Third Sunday after the Epiphany, Year One), when comments were repeated from June 6, 2008 (Friday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 1, Year Two), when comments were repeated with editing from January 26, 2007 (Friday in the week of the Third Sunday after the Epiphany, Year One), when comments were repeated with some revision and supplement from June 9, 2006 (Friday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 1, Year Two), when some use was made of earlier comments, as noted there.

Paul continues to support his thesis (Gal. 2:15-21). The fourth argument, the “example from daily life” (Gal. 3:15) turns on the double meaning of the Greek word diaqhvkh (diathēkē), translated as “will” (i.e. “last will and testament”) in Gal. 3:15, but as “covenant” in verse 17. This understanding is combined with the reference to “offspring” (spevrma, sperma, literally “seed”) to show that the promise, is to (and through) Christ. The promises “were made to Abraham and to his offspring [seed]; it does not say, ‘and to offsprings,’ as of many, but it says, ‘And to your offspring,’ that is, to one person, who is Christ” (v. 16). Sheila Briggs points out that

Paul uses the same Greek word as the Septuagint text of God’s promises to Abraham in Genesis (Gen. 12:7; 15:5; 17:8; 22:17). Paul contrasts the singular seed in the text with the common (and in his view mistaken) interpretation of it as plural seeds. (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Gal. 3:16).

Paul is then prepared to conclude that the Law of Moses, “which came four hundred thirty years later, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise” (Gal 3:17). He explains: “For if the inheritance comes from the law, it no longer comes from the promise; but God granted it to Abraham through the promise” (v. 18). Paul anticipates certain questions, the first, “Why then the law? (v. 19a). The first answer is that the law “was added because of transgressions, until the offspring [Christ] would come to whom the promise had been made” (v. 19b). It further counts against the law that it was “ordained through angels by a mediator” (v. 19c), a view which, according to Bruce M. Metzger and John Reumann, was “according to later Jewish belief”(NOAB, 2^nd ed., 1994, on Gal. 3:19-25). Paul adds that, “a mediator involves more than one party; but God is one” (v. 20). This verse is called “obscure” by Briggs, who says that it “links monotheism with there being no need for a mediator of God’s promise” (op. cit., on v. 20). After referring to many interpretations of this verse, Ronald Y. K. Fung favors the view which

regards the plurality implied in “not . . . of one” as a duality of parties and understands the verse as emphasizing the one-sided nature of the promise. Here the thought is that while the very idea of mediation involved in the giving of the law indicates that it is of the nature of a contract between two parties, both of whom have to fulfill its terms for it to be valid, the promise is a unilateral disposition dependent solely on God’s sovereign grace. . . .

Thus far, then, in his answer to the question regarding the purpose of the law Paul has pointed to its negative function, its limited validity, its mediated communication, and its conditional nature–all of which show, by implication if not by explicit statement, that the later dispensation of law is inferior to the original covenant of promise. (The Epistle to the Galatians, NICNT, 1989, pp. 161-162, on Gal. 3:20)

The second question, “Is the law then opposed to the promises of God?” (v. 21a), is answered in the negative. “Certainly not!” For if a law had been given that could make alive, then righteousness would indeed come through the law” (v. 21b). The law is not opposed to the promises of God. It is about righteousness even though it cannot “make alive.” The true remedy for the power of sin is “faith in Jesus Christ.” “But the scripture has imprisoned all things under the power of sin, so that what was promised through faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.” (v. 22). Faith works, of course, when it is placed in someone who is trustworthy, when it is placed in God. Karl Barth has described faith as faith (pivstiV, pistis) in the faithfulness [pivstiV, pistis (same word)] of God (commenting on Romans 1:17, “through faith [pivstiV, pistis] for faith [pivstiV, pistis]”).

From faithfulness the righteousness of God reveals itself, that is to say, from His faithfulness to us. The very God has not forgotten men; the Creator has not abandoned the creation. . . . though the manifestation of what cannot be made know be the impossibility before which only the thoughtless are not terrified; yet, the faithfulness of God to men still abides.” (The Epistle to the Romans, 1965, p. 41, on Rom. 1:17).

Barth adds: “Unto faith is revealed that which God reveals from His faithfulness. . . . Those who honestly allow themselves to be set to wait know thereby that they ought, must, and can, await the faithfulness of God” (ibid.). “In them is fulfilled the prophecy–The righteous shall live from faithfulness! (Hab. ii.4). . . . He shall live. He has the expectation of true life, for, recognizing that this life is naught, he is never without the prospect of incorruption in that which is passing to corruption” (ibid.). “He shall live of the faithfulness of God. Whether we say of the faithfulness of God or ‘of the faith of men’, both are the same” (ibid., p. 42).

Luke 1:39-48a (48b-56), Episcopal and Lutheran Traditions

39 In those days Mary set out and went with haste to a Judean town in the hill country, 40 where she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth. 41 When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the child leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit 42 and exclaimed with a loud cry, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. 43 And why has this happened to me, that the mother of my Lord comes to me? 44 For as soon as I heard the sound of your greeting, the child in my womb leaped for joy. 45 And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her by the Lord."

The Magnificat

46 And Mary said,

"My soul magnifies the Lord,

47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,

48 for he has looked with favor on the lowliness of his servant. (Luke 1:39-48a, NRSV)

Surely, from now on all generations will call me blessed;

49 for the Mighty One has done great things for me,

and holy is his name.

50 His mercy is for those who fear him

from generation to generation.

51 He has shown strength with his arm;

he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts.

52 He has brought down the powerful from their thrones,

and lifted up the lowly;

53 he has filled the hungry with good things,

and sent the rich away empty.

54 He has helped his servant Israel,

in remembrance of his mercy,

55 according to the promise he made to our ancestors,

to Abraham and to his descendants forever."

56 And Mary remained with her about three months and then returned to her home. (Luke 1:39-56, NRSV)

The following comments on Luke 1:39-56 are repeated here from December 21, 2009, two days ago, when it was the Presbyterian reading. Reference to previous sources is made there:

This reading follow’s Luke’s account of the Annunciation, in which the angel Gabriel informs Mary about the forthcoming birth of Jesus (Lk. 1:26-38). Mary comes from Nazareth (v. 26) to visit Elizabeth. “In those days Mary set out and went with haste to a Judean town in the hill country, where she entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth” (vv. 39-40). While the term “hill country” could apply to almost any part of what Denis Baly calls “a mountainous spine running its length [i.e., the length of ‘the land of Palestine’] between the Jordan River to the east and the Mediterranean Sea to the west” (Harper’s Bible Dictionary, rev. ed., 1996, s.v. “hill country”), the hill country of Judea (cf. v. 65) would likely be not far from Bethlehem, and perhaps not far from Jerusalem (compare Zechariah’s service in the temple, vv. 8-23). “When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting,” says Luke, “the child leaped in her womb. And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit” (v. 41). According to David L. Tiede, revised by Christopher R. Matthews, “That the child leaped in her womb already signals John’s role as forerunner to Jesus, as does Elizabeth’s filling with the Holy Spirit and prophetic acclamation of Mary in vv. 42-45 (see v. 67)” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Luke 1:41). According to Marion Lloyd Soards, “Elizabeth’s being filled with the Holy Spirit may also acknowledge the presence and the power of the Holy Spirit at work in relation to the unborn John in her womb” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Lk. 1:41). In a recent sermon, the Reverend Vicki M. Davis says, “That image – the child leaping in Elizabeth’s womb when Mary enters, Mary herself carrying Jesus in her womb – strikes me as the central metaphor in this passage for this juncture in the church year, and it is a metaphor that speaks to the way in which Christ enters our lives and how we respond – or not” (“The Child leaped in her womb,” Dec. 24, 2006, the Fourth Sunday of Advent, at St. Mark’s Episcopal Church, New Canaan, CT, on the Internet, at http://www.stmarksnewcanaan.org/docs/TheChildleapedinherwomb.pdf, accessed Dec. 21, 2009).

In response to Mary’s greeting, “filled with the Holy Spirit” (v. 41), Elizabeth responds with what Tiede and Matthews call a “prophetic acclamation of Mary in vv. 42-45 (see v. 67)” (op. cit., on v. 41):

Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. And why has this happened to me, that the mother of my Lord comes to me? For as soon as I heard the sound of your greeting, the child in my womb leaped for joy. And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her by the Lord. (Lk. 1:42b-45, NRSV)

Elizabeth concludes by summing up Mary’s response to Gabriel. “Mary is blessed,” say Tiede and Matthews, “because she believed the angel’s message about her pregnancy (vv. 30-38; see also v. 42; cf. 11:27-28)” (ibid., on v. 45). “Prior to his birth,” says Soards, “Jesus is designated Lord ” (op. cit., on v. 43).

Mary responds in poetic lines that have been called the Magnificat, from the first word in the Latin version: “My soul magnifies [magnificat, first in Latin word order, cf. Greek Megaluvnei, Megalynei] the Lord, / and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, / for he has looked with favor on the lowliness of his servant (Lk. 1:46-48a NRSV). Mary’s song has been compared to Hannah’s prayer (1 Sam. 2:1-10). The following table shows points of comparison.

As noted earlier, Hannah’s song has been classified as a community song of thanksgiving because it anticipates good things for God’s people under Samuel’s leadership. In a similar way, much of Mary’s song does the same, anticipating the salvation to be brought by her son Jesus. As noted above, Mary “magnifies the Lord,” and her “spirit rejoices in God” (Lk. 1:46b, 47; cf. 1 Sam. 2:1b, c). Mary’s exclamation that God “has looked with favor on the lowliness of his servant (douvlh, doulē, feminine noun). / Surely, from now on all generations will call me blessed” (Lk. 1:48). While this verse is not an exact parallel to lines of Hannah’s song, its tone certainly echoes Hannah’s relief at no longer being barren. Compare “my victory” (1 Sam. 2:1e) and “the barren has borne seven” (v. 5c). Mary continues with reasons for calling her blessed: “for the Mighty One has done great things for me, / and holy is his name” (Lk. 1:49). For “the Mighty One” as a reference to God, compare “there is no Rock like our God” (1 Sam. 2:2c). For “holy is his name,” compare “There is no Holy One like the LORD” (1 Sam. 2:2a; cf. also Ps. 111:9). For “great things for me,” which “the Mighty One has done,” compare the following lists in both songs. “His mercy (to; e[leoV aujtou:, to eleos autou) is for those who fear him,” says Mary, “from generation to generation” (Lk. 1:50; cf. Ps. 103:13, 17). She echoes the “steadfast love” (ds,H,, chesed, cf. to; . . . e[leoV, to . . . eleos LXX) of Psalm 103:17 [LXX 102:17], which could also refer to Hannah’s list of God’s many benefits.

Mary says, “He [God] has shown strength with his arm; / he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts” (Lk. 1:51; cf. Ps. 89:10 and 2 Sam. 22:28). Note Hannah’s reference to “arrogance” (1 Sam. 2:3b) and her statement, “The bows of the mighty are broken, / but the feeble gird on strength” (v. 4). “He has brought down the powerful from their thrones,” says Mary, “and lifted up the lowly” (Lk. 1:52). For “brought down the powerful,” compare Job 12:19; and for “lifted up the lowly,” compare Job 5:11. For both compare the contrasts in 1 Samuel 2:4, 5, 6, 7, and 9. Note that Hannah sings, proclaiming that “The Lord makes poor and makes rich; / he brings low, he also exalts. / He raises up the poor from the dust; / he lifts the needy from the ash heap, / to make them sit with princes / and inherit a seat of honor” (1 Sam. 2:7, 8a, b). In a specific contrast, Mary says, “he [i.e., God] has filled the hungry with good things, / and sent the rich away empty” (Lk. 1:53; cf. 1 Sam. 2:5; Ps. 107:9). Mary celebrates not only the favor shown to her by the LORD (vv. 48, 49), but the blessings for her people. “He has helped his servant Israel, / in remembrance of his mercy, / according to the promise he made to our ancestors, / to Abraham and to his descendants forever” (Lk. 1:54-55). Hannah’s song, of course spells out the benefits not only for her self, but for her people, through her son Samuel, we would assume, but surprisingly, through Israel’s future king. “The LORD will judge the ends of the earth; / he will give strength to his king [LXX ‘kings’ plural], / and exalt the power of his anointed (H1yw9mA, māšî ^ach, LXX cristovV, christos)” (1 Sam. 2:10c,d, e). While Mary’s song does not specifically mention Jesus’ role as Messiah, it’s clearly implied in the context. For God’s “promise” to ancestors, to Abraham and his descendants, Elwyn E. Tilden and Bruce M. Metzger refer to Genesis 17:7; 18:18; 22:17; and Micah 7:20 (NOAB, 2^nd ed., 1994, on Lk. 1:55), which focuses on the promise to Abraham, but in addition Tiede and Matthews say “the promise to David (2 Sam. 7:11-16; 1 Chr. 17:10-14) is also fulfilled” (op. cit., on v. 55).

Luke 1:67-80, Presbyterian Tradition

67 Then his father Zechariah was filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke this prophecy:

68 “Blessed be the Lord God of Israel,

for he has looked favorably on his people and redeemed them.

69 He has raised up a mighty savior for us

in the house of his servant David,

70 as he spoke through the mouth of his holy prophets from of old,

71 that we would be saved from our enemies and from the hand of all who hate us.

72 Thus he has shown the mercy promised to our ancestors,

and has remembered his holy covenant,

73 the oath that he swore to our ancestor Abraham,

to grant us74 that we, being rescued from the hands of our enemies,

might serve him without fear,75 in holiness and righteousness

before him all our days.

76 And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High;

for you will go before the Lord to prepare his ways,

77 to give knowledge of salvation to his people

by the forgiveness of their sins.

78 By the tender mercy of our God,

the dawn from on high will break upon us,

79 to give light to those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death,

to guide our feet into the way of peace.”

80 The child grew and became strong in spirit, and he was in the wilderness until the day he appeared publicly to Israel. (Luke 1:67-80, NRSV)

On December 24, 2008 (Wednesday in the week of the Fourth Sunday of Advent, Reference for December 24, Year One), comments were repeated with editing and supplement from December 24, 2006 (the Fourth Sunday of Advent, Year One, ref. for Dec. 24), when comments were repeated from December 24, 2004, (the references designated for Dec. 24, Year One). The comments are repeated again here with editing and supplement:

As we indicated yesterday, after the encounter with Gabriel, Zechariah’s first spoken words of which we know are the prophecy known as the Benedictus (Lk. 1:67-79). The Benedictus is one of a series of hymnic poems found in Luke’s Infancy Narratives (cf. the Magnificat, Lk. 1:46-55; the Benedictus, 1:67-79; the angels’ song, Gloria in excelsis, 2:14; and the Nunc dimittis, 2:29-32, each so named from the opening words in Latin). In introducing the Benedictus, Luke tells us that “Zechariah was filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke this prophecy” (Lk. 1:67).

“Blessed ( EujloghtovV, Eulogētos = Latin Benedictus) [‘be the,’ understood in Greek] Lord God of Israel,” says Zechariah, “for he has looked favorably on his people and redeemed them” (v. 68; cf. Pss. 41:13 [Heb. 41:14]; 72:18; 89:52 [Heb. 89:53];106:48). In each of these Psalm texts, the Septuagint (40:14; 71:18; 88:53; 105:48) has Eujloghto;V kuvrioV (Eulogētos), “Bless the LORD,” for the Hebrew hvhy j`UrBA (bārûk YHWH). These Psalm texts relate to what Patrick D. Miller points out as the “doxology [that] marks the end of each of the five sections, or ‘books,’ of the Psalter,” including the whole of Psalm 150 (with repeated “Praise the LORD,” vv. 1a, 6a, b, “Praise God,” v. 1b, or “praise him,” vv. 1c, 2a, b, 3a, b, 4a, b, 5a, b; thus in every line).

A technical note: The differences in chapter and/or verse numbering given above are due to differences in the numbering of chapters and verses in the Hebrew text and the Septuagint from that of many English versions, including the Authorized (King James) Version and the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV). Sometimes, as in Psalms 41 and 89, the Psalm superscription is counted as verse 1 in the Hebrew text and the Septuagint text, but not so in English versions (except those based on numbering in the Latin Vulgate, which followed the Septuagint numbering). In the Septuagint, Psalms 9 and 10, separate in the Hebrew text and many English versions, are counted as one Psalm, Psalm 9. In the Septuagint, Psalm 147 (Hebrew, many English versions) is divided into two Psalms (Pss. 146, 147 LXX). So for Hebrew Psalms 11-146 the equivalent Septuagint Psalm has a chapter number one less than that of the Hebrew (and the English Bibles that follow the Hebrew numbering). As one practical consequence, for example, if one were to enter into a discussion of Psalm 23 with a Roman Catholic person, one should be aware that his or her Bible (The Douay or Douay Rheims Bible, from the 16^th century, or many later Roman Catholic Bible translations), would count Psalm 23 (AV/KJV, NRSV) as Psalm 22.

Zechariah’s Benedictus is thus clearly in a long-standing Hebrew tradition.

According to David L. Tiede and Christopher Matthews, “looked favorably on, or visited, as when a ruler makes an official visitation, [is used] here in an eschatological sense.” And they add that “his people indicates that more is involved than personal deliverance for John’s parents” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Lk. 1:68, with ref. to their note on v. 25, “Childlessness was considered a disgrace (see Gen. 16:4; 30:23) requiring God’s intervention”). Zechariah defines God’s favor: “He has raised up a mighty savior (kevraV swthrivaV, keras sōtērias, lit. ‘horn of salvation,’ cf. NRSV text note a) for us / in the house of his servant David, / as he spoke through the mouth of his holy prophets from of old, / that we would be saved from our enemies and from the hand of all who hate us” (vv. 69-71). The words “mighty savior,” according to Elwyn E. Tilden and Bruce M. Metzger, refer to “one who will bring salvation; see Ps. 18:1-3; 92:10-11; 132:17-18” (NOAB, 2^nd ed., 1994, on Lk. 1:69). According to Tiede and Matthews, these words translate what is literally “a horn of salvation” (see above), alluding to a Davidic ruler [cf. v. 69b] (see 1 Sam. 2:10; Pss. 18:2; 132:17; 148:14; see also Lk. 1:32-33)” (op. cit., on v. 69). Luke refers this promise to prophetic promises (v. 70), and defines the salvation as national deliverance (v. 71; cf. Ps. 106:10). As such it fulfills the promises and covenant with Israel’s ancestors. “Thus he has shown the mercy promised to our ancestors, / and has remembered his holy covenant (diaqhvkh, diathēkē), / the oath (o{rkoV, horkos) that he swore to our ancestor Abraham” (vv. 72, 73a). “Luke,” say Tiede and Matthews, “underlines the covenant with Abraham (see also Acts 3:25; 7:8)” (ibid., on v. 72). The covenant is interpreted as more than mere title to the promised land; rather, in a spiritual sense, it is a promise “to grant us that we, being rescued / from the hands of our enemies, / might serve him [i.e., God] without fear, in holiness and righteousness / before him all our days” (vv. 73b-75). According to Tiede and Matthews, the words “serve him without fear [are] a reference to Israel’s worship and life” (ibid., on v. 74). Perhaps more than he knew or fully comprehended, Zechariah anticipated the redemption, restoration and blessed future of God’s people, fulfilling the ancient promises.

Zechariah addresses the infant John. “And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High; / for you will go before the Lord to prepare his ways, / to give knowledge of salvation to his people / by the forgiveness of their sins” (vv. 76-77; cf. Isa. 40:3; Mal. 3:1; Mt. 3:3). To the title “the prophet of the Most High” for John, we may compare Jesus’ title, “the Son of the Most High” (v. 32, as Tiede and Matthews indicate, ibid., on v. 76). “The practical knowledge of salvation that John brings,” they add, “is focused on repentance for the forgiveness of their sins (see 3:3)” (ibid., on v. 77).

“By the tender mercy of our God,” says Zechariah, “the dawn from on high will break upon us, / to give light to those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, / to guide our feet into the way of peace” (vv. 78-79; cf. Mal. 4:2; Isa. 9:2; 58:8; 60:1-2; Mt. 4:16). “The dawn,” say Tilden and Metzger, “will be when God fulfills his purpose to bless humankind” (op. cit., on v. 78). According to Tiede and Matthews, “dawn [is] a messianic metaphor (Num. 24:17, Septuagint)” (op. cit., on v. 78).

At the close of the chapter Luke tells us that “the child grew and became strong in spirit, and he was in the wilderness until the day he appeared publicly to Israel” (v. 80). “These words,” says Marion Lloyd Soards, “cover a period of approximately thirty years (see 3:23).

  or Matthew 1:1-17, Presbyterian Tradition

The Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah (Ruth 4.18-22; 1 Chr 2.1-15; Lk 3.23-38)

1:1 An account of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

2 Abraham was the father of Isaac, and Isaac the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers, 3 and Judah the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar, and Perez the father of Hezron, and Hezron the father of Aram, 4 and Aram the father of Aminadab, and Aminadab the father of Nahshon, and Nahshon the father of Salmon, 5 and Salmon the father of Boaz by Rahab, and Boaz the father of Obed by Ruth, and Obed the father of Jesse, 6 and Jesse the father of King David.

And David was the father of Solomon by the wife of Uriah, 7 and Solomon the father of Rehoboam, and Rehoboam the father of Abijah, and Abijah the father of Asaph, 8 and Asaph the father of Jehoshaphat, and Jehoshaphat the father of Joram, and Joram the father of Uzziah, 9 and Uzziah the father of Jotham, and Jotham the father of Ahaz, and Ahaz the father of Hezekiah, 10 and Hezekiah the father of Manasseh, and Manasseh the father of Amos, and Amosthe father of Josiah, 11 and Josiah the father of Jechoniah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon.

12 And after the deportation to Babylon: Jechoniah was the father of Salathiel, and Salathiel the father of Zerubbabel, 13 and Zerubbabel the father of Abiud, and Abiud the father of Eliakim, and Eliakim the father of Azor, 14 and Azor the father of Zadok, and Zadok the father of Achim, and Achim the father of Eliud, 15 and Eliud the father of Eleazar, and Eleazar the father of Matthan, and Matthan the father of Jacob, 16 and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah.

17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David to the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations; and from the deportation to Babylon to the Messiah, fourteen generations. (Matthew 1:1-17, NRSV)

The following comments are repeated here with editing and supplement from December 23, 2007 (Fourth Sunday of Advent, Reference for December 23, Year Two), when comments were repeated from December 23, 2005 (Friday in the week of the Fourth Sunday of Advent, Year Two; Presbyterian ref. for December 23).

Matthew’s genealogy of Jesus presents a balanced sequence of fourteen generations each “from Abraham to David,” from David to the deportation to Babylon,” and “from the deportation to Babylon to the Messiah” (Mt. 1:17). Elwyn E. Tilden and Bruce M. Metzger note that, “The device of making three groups of names is an aid to memory. Fourteen is the sum of the numeric value of the three letters in the name David in Hebrew (DWD)” (NOAB, 2^nd ed., on Mt. 1:17). Earlier they note “the omission of Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah,” “for the sake of the pattern,” and “consistent with Jewish practice in forming genealogies” (ibid., on v. 8; cf. J. Andrew Overman, NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Mt. 1:17). Ahaziah, not the son of Ahab (1 Kgs. 22:51-53), but the son of Athaliah, daughter of Ahab and Jezebel (2 Kgs. 8:25-26), as king of Judah, promoted the idolatrous ways of Ahab (v. 27). Joash (Jehoash), the grandson of the wicked Queen Athaliah who escaped her wrath upon the death of Ahaziah (2 Kgs. 11), is given a mixed evaluation. He “did what was right in the sight of the LORD all his days, because the priest Jehoiada instructed him. Nevertheless the high places were not taken away” (2 Kgs. 12:2, 3a). But according to 2 Chronicles, after the death of the priest Jehoiada, Joash promoted idolatry (2 Chron. 24:17-19. When the prophet Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada–not the prophet of the Book of Zechariah–pronounced judgment on this idolatry, the people “conspired against him [i.e., against Zechariah], and by command of the king [i.e., King Joash], they stoned him to death in the court of the house of the LORD” (2 Kgs. 24:21, cf. vv. 20-22). Amaziah is also rated less than satisfactory in 2 Kings. “He did what was right in the sight of the LORD, yet not with a true heart” (2 Kgs. 25:2). In a time of battle, he heeds the advice of “a man of God” (2 Kgs. 25:7-10). But he promoted idolatry (v. 14), and denounced the prophet who rebuked him for that (vv. 15-16). In the end the editors say, “From the time that Amaziah turned away from the LORD they made a conspiracy against him in Jerusalem, and he fled to Lachish. But they sent after him to Lachish, and killed him there” (v. 27). So it is perhaps no wonder that Matthew’s genealogy omits these three; on the other hand, Manasseh is included.

With reference to the omission of three kings of Judah from the lineage of Abraham and David down to Jesus–not to mention the omission of Queen Athaliah, daughter of Ahab and Jezebel, we may see good reason for the omissions in their unfaithfulness as noted above. John Wesley takes the view that such omissions were the responsibility of the Jewish record keepers, and even though writing under inspiration, it was not Matthew’s place to “correct” the Jewish records. Wesley says:

The book of the generation of Jesus Christ - That is, strictly speaking, the account of his birth and genealogy. This title therefore properly relates to the verses that immediately follow: but as it sometimes signifies the history of a person, in that sense it may belong to the whole book. If there were any difficulties in this genealogy, or that given by St. Luke, which could not easily be removed, they would rather affect the Jewish tables, than the credit of the evangelists: for they act only as historians setting down these genealogies, as they stood in those public and allowed records. Therefore they were to take them as they found them. Nor was it needful they should correct the mistakes, if there were any. For these accounts sufficiently answer the end for which they are recited. They unquestionably prove the grand point in view, that Jesus was of the family from which the promised seed was to come. And they had more weight with the Jews for this purpose, than if alterations had been made by inspiration itself. For such alterations would have occasioned endless disputes between them and the disciples of our Lord. The son of David, the son of Abraham - He is so called, because to these he was more peculiarly promised; and of these it was often foretold the Messiah should spring. (“Notes on the Gospel according to St. Matthew,” from his Explanatory Notes on the New Testament, on the Internet at http://wesley.nnu.edu/john_wesley/notes/matthew.htm, on Mt. 1:1; accessed December 22, 2009)

For practice in the recognition and use of the Greek alphabet, I sometimes ask Greek students to practice on the names in this genealogy, assuming that some of them would be familiar. But there is no reason to list them here. The following pattern is used repeatedly throughout the genealogy: “Abraham was the father of ( ejgevnnhsen, egennēsen, aorist tense of gennavw, gennaō, which refers to the role of a parent, of a mother “to bear [a child],”, of a father, “to father, beget, procreate, cf. Frederick William Danker, The Concise Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 2009, s.v. gennavw, gennaō ) Isaac,” and so forth (Mt. 1:2a). This pattern is used to list the names in the lineage from Abraham down to Jesus–with the three notable exceptions indicated above.

Another variation in the pattern has been noted in the inclusion of five women (four plus Mary) in the genealogy, which otherwise names only the fathers. In addition to Mary, these are mentioned: Tamar (Gen. 38), Rahab (Josh. 2), Ruth and “the wife of Uriah,” that is, Bathsheba (who remains unnamed). These women have been considered marginal by some, but Overman says, “Each acted independently, in some cases scandalously, at critical junctures in Israel’s history to ensure the continuation of the Davidic line” (op. cit., on Mt. 1:3-6). Rosemary M. Dowsett notes that this genealogy is not “sanitized,” but includes “saint and sinner, illustrious king and obscure nobody.” She adds, “Yet even more intriguing is the inclusion of five women, five mothers, each of whom, in a beautiful way, is a sign of the grace of the gospel. God’s good news for sinners” (The IVP Women’s Bible Commentary, 521, on Mt. 1:1-17). After briefly summarizing the biblical stories about each, she summarizes:

What is Matthew doing in including these women in the genealogy of Jesus? He is celebrating the thread of God’s grace in the Old Testament, a thread that is quite as much in evidence in the lives of women as in those of men. He is showing how God turns tragedy into triumph, even as he does with his Son. No one, man or woman, is condemned beyond hope, no one need feel so dirty, so worthless, so powerless, that there is no possibility of being drawn within the circle of the Lord’s compassion and merciful concern. Women as well as men are of such immeasurable value to him that he will go to any lengths to give us a hope and a future, to bring good from evil, to give the grace of a new beginning with the slate of the past wiped clean. (Dowsett, p. 522)

It is clear that Matthew’s genealogy is intended to show that Jesus is descended from David and his dynasty, through the kings of Judah. It thus anticipates the quest of the wise men (mavgoi, magoi, from “a class of Oriental men of letters and experts in astrology,” Danker, op. cit., s.v. mavgoV, magos), who came to Herod’s court asking, “Where is the child who has been born king of the Jews?” (Mt. 2:2a), and further emphases within the Gospel. Luke’s genealogy, on the other hand (Luke 3:23-38), while emphasizing Jesus’ lineage back to David–and so his Jewishness–goes further, back to Adam, and so emphasizes Jesus’ relation to all of humanity. From Abraham down to (Mt.) or back to (Lk.) Abraham, the list is essentially the same. For Aram (Mt. 1:3-4), Luke has Arni (Lk. 3:33, cf. text note f ); for Aminadab (Mt. 1:4), Luke has Admin and Amminadab ( Lk. 3:33); and for Salmon (Mt. 1:4-5), Luke has Sala (Lk. 3:32, cf. text note e with Salmon). On the textual variants related to Aminadab (Mt. 1:4; cf. Lk. 3:33), Bruce M. Metzger says, “Faced with a bewildering variety of readings, the Committee [i.e., the editors of The Greek New Testament by K. Aland and others, 3^rd ed., 1975] adopted what seems to be the least unsatisfactory form of text, a reading that was current in the Alexandrian church at an early period” (A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 1971, on Lk. 3:33). On the variant readings of Luke 3:32, Metzger says,

The original reading appears to be Salav [Sala] (p⁴ x* B syr^{s, pal} cop^{sa, bo mss} eth), which copyists later assimilated to Salmwvn [Salmōn], the reading of both the Matthean parallel (Mt. 1:4-5) and the Septuagint of 1 Chr. 2:11 or to Salmavn [Salman], the reading of ms. B at Ru. 4:20 f. (Salmwvn [Salmōn], ms. A). In view of the early tradition that Luke was a Syrian of Antioch it is perhaps significant that the form Salav [Sala] appears to embody a Syriac tradition (the Peshitta version of Ru 4:20 f. reads [s-l-’]. (ibid., on Lk. 3:32).

More important, perhaps, from our perspective is the difference in the lineage from David down to Jesus. In Matthew, as noted, it runs through the kings of Judah down to Jechoniah (i.e., Jehoiachin) (Mt. 1:11) and his grandson Zerubbabel (v. 12), but then through a list of mostly unknown persons down to “Joseph the husband of Mary of whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah” (Mt. 1:16). Luke’s genealogy goes from Joseph (“he was the son [as was thought] of Joseph”) (Lk. 3:23) up to David through Nathan (Lk. 3:31), not Solomon, through a list of mostly unknown persons (vv. 23-31). In every generation except one’s parents, of course, one has multiple ancestors–two parents, four grandparents, eight great grandparents, and so on, except for occasional duplications–so there is no reason at all why both lists could be completely correct. But as is often noted, Luke’s lineage of Jesus back to Adam emphasizes his relation to humanity. According to David L. Tiede, revised by Christopher R. Matthews, “Matthew focuses on descent from Abraham, but Luke establishes Jesus as son of David in the line of Adam, son of God (see v. 22), thus emphasizing his significance for all humankind.

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net