1 Samuel 1:1-2, 7b-28

1:1 There was a certain man of Ramathaim, a Zuphite from the hill country of Ephraim, whose name was Elkanah son of Jeroham son of Elihu son of Tohu son of Zuph, an Ephraimite. 2 He had two wives; the name of the one was Hannah, and the name of the other Peninnah. Peninnah had children, but Hannah had no children. (1 Samuel 1:1-2, NRSV)

Therefore Hannah wept and would not eat. 8 Her husband Elkanah said to her, “Hannah, why do you weep? Why do you not eat? Why is your heart sad? Am I not more to you than ten sons?”

9 After they had eaten and drunk at Shiloh, Hannah rose and presented herself before the LORD. Now Eli the priest was sitting on the seat beside the doorpost of the temple of the LORD. 10 She was deeply distressed and prayed to the LORD, and wept bitterly. 11 She made this vow: “O LORD of hosts, if only you will look on the misery of your servant, and remember me, and not forget your servant, but will give to your servant a male child, then I will set him before you as a nazirite until the day of his death. He shall drink neither wine nor intoxicants, and no razor shall touch his head.”

12 As she continued praying before the LORD, Eli observed her mouth. 13 Hannah was praying silently; only her lips moved, but her voice was not heard; therefore Eli thought she was drunk. 14 So Eli said to her, “How long will you make a drunken spectacle of yourself? Put away your wine.” 15 But Hannah answered, “No, my lord, I am a woman deeply troubled; I have drunk neither wine nor strong drink, but I have been pouring out my soul before the LORD. 16 Do not regard your servant as a worthless woman, for I have been speaking out of my great anxiety and vexation all this time.” 17 Then Eli answered, “Go in peace; the God of Israel grant the petition you have made to him.” 18 And she said, “Let your servant find favor in your sight.” Then the woman went to her quarters, ate and drank with her husband, and her countenance was sad no longer.

19 They rose early in the morning and worshiped before the LORD; then they went back to their house at Ramah. Elkanah knew his wife Hannah, and the LORD remembered her. 20 In due time Hannah conceived and bore a son. She named him Samuel, for she said, “I have asked him of the LORD.”

21 The man Elkanah and all his household went up to offer to the LORD the yearly sacrifice, and to pay his vow. 22 But Hannah did not go up, for she said to her husband, “As soon as the child is weaned, I will bring him, that he may appear in the presence of the LORD, and remain there forever; I will offer him as a nazirite for all time.” 23 Her husband Elkanah said to her, “Do what seems best to you, wait until you have weaned him; only-may the LORD establish his word.” So the woman remained and nursed her son, until she weaned him. 24 When she had weaned him, she took him up with her, along with a three-year-old bull, an ephah of flour, and a skin of wine. She brought him to the house of the LORD at Shiloh; and the child was young. 25 Then they slaughtered the bull, and they brought the child to Eli. 26 And she said, “Oh, my lord! As you live, my lord, I am the woman who was standing here in your presence, praying to the LORD. 27 For this child I prayed; and the LORD has granted me the petition that I made to him. 28 Therefore I have lent him to the LORD; as long as he lives, he is given to the LORD.”

She left him there for the LORD. (1 Samuel 1:7b-28, NRSV)

The following comments are based on those of December 30, 2007 (the First Sunday after Christmas, Year Two), when comments were repeated from June 18 and 19, 2007 (Monday and Tuesday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 15, Year One), when comments were based on those of June 13 and 14, two years earlier, and on comments of January 1, 2006 (the first Sunday after Christmas, Year Two) and from May 26, 2006 (Friday in the week of the Sixth Sunday of Easter, Year Two):

This lesson, from 1 Samuel chapter 1, introduces the parents of Samuel. “There was a certain man of Ramathaim, a Zuphite (Myp9Oc My9tamArAhA, hārāmāthayim tsôfîm; cf LXX Armaqaim Sifa, Armathaim Sipha) from the hill country of Ephraim, whose name was Elkanah son of Jeroham son of Elihu son of Tohu son of Zuph, an Ephraimite (1 Sam. 1:1 NRSV). According to Nancy L. Lapp, “The Ramathaim-zophim of 1 Sam. 1:1 in the RSV would be better translated ‘a man of Ramathaim, a Zuphite from the hill country of Ephraim’ (NEB)” (Harper’s Bible Dictionary, rev. ed., 1996, s.v. Ramah 2.). She adds, “It is thereafter called Ramah in the story of Samuel, but it is probably to be distinguished from Ramah of Benjamin” (ibid.). The reading of the NRSV (above) is in agreement with Lapp’s suggestion, and NRSV text note a, says “Compare Gk and 1 Chr. 6:35-36: Heb. Ramathaim-zophim.” For “Ramathaim, a Zuphite,” older translations, based on the Hebrew text, have “Ramathaim-zophim” (AV/KJV, ERV, ASV) and some more recent translations (e.g., RSV, NKJV, NASV). But the reading of the NRSV is found in the NIV, TNIV and NEB; compare “from Ramathaim of the Zuphites” (NJPS, apparently based on the Hebrew text). According to P. Kyle McCarter Jr., “Ramathaim, NT Arimathea, may have been in the northern Shephelah near Timnah and Lod” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on 1 Sam. 1:1).

The text says that Elkanah son of Jeroham was “from the hill country of Ephraim (v. 1). McCarter assumes that makes him an Ephraimite, but adds that he “is given a levitical genealogy in 1 Chr. 6:26, where he is listed as a member of the clan of Kohath, which had special responsibility for the ark (see Num. 3:29-31); this qualifies his son Samuel for the priestly duties he carries out in chs. 2-3” (ibid.). Special attention is given here to Hannah, the childless wife of Elkanah. “He had two wives; the name of the one was Hannah, and the name of the other (tyn97w0eha, haššēnîth, lit. ‘the second) Peninnah. Peninnah had children, but Hannah had no children” (1 Sam. 2:2). According to Shimon Bar-Efrat, “Bigamy was allowed and not uncommon” (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, on 1 Sam. 1:2). Steven L. McKenzie says, “Peninnah is ‘the second’ (translated the other in the NRSV [see above]) wife; Hannah is obviously the favored one. Elkanah probably married Peninnah because of Hannah’s failure to produce an heir (see Gen. 16:1-2). Elkanah, therefore, was probably prosperous” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on 1 Sam. 1:2). The fact that Peninnah had children but Hannah had none made matters worse for Hannah. The situations are rather different, but we may compare Sarah’s treatment of Hagar (Gen. 16). According to Gwylim H. Jones, “There was inevitable tension and rivalry between the two women, with Hannah being constantly provoked and distressed; this provided a perfect scene for a miraculous intervention and the subsequent contrast between her humiliation and ultimate triumph” (The Oxford Bible Commentary, 2001, p. 201, on 1 Sam. 1:1-2:10).

In the interval between parts of the reading (vv. 3-7a), we learn more details about the conflict between Hannah and Peninnah. It was Elkanah’s custom, we are told, “to go up year by year from his town to worship and to sacrifice to the LORD of hosts at Shiloh, where the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, were priests of the LORD” (v. 3). “Shiloh, in the Ephraimite hills about twenty miles north-northeast of Jerusalem,” says McCarter, “was the central sanctuary of the Israelites at the time of Samuel’s birth” (op. cit., on v. 3). According to McKenzie, “Elkanah’s annual pilgrimage to worship in Shiloh shows him to be a righteous man. The LORD of hosts or ‘armies,’ (Heb. ‘tseba’ot’),” he says, “is a title describing Yahweh’s leadership in war on Israel’s behalf.” And he adds, “Hophni and Phinehas are Egyptian names” (op. cit., on v. 3). Bar-Efrat says,

The Ark of the LORD was housed in the sanctuary at Shiloh. The information concerning the worship every year at Shiloh links the beginning of the book of Samuel with the end of the book of Judges, where a feast of God is mentioned, celebrated every year at Shiloh (Judg. 21:19). Though not figuring in the present story, the two sons of Eli are mentioned because the stories about Samuel are intertwined with those about Eli and his sons (see ch. 2). (op. cit., on v. 3)

On the occasion of these sacrifices, there were portions to share with family. “On the day when Elkanah sacrificed, he would give portions to his wife Peninnah and to all her sons and daughters; but to Hannah he gave a double portion (My9PA5xa tHaxa, ’achath ’appāyim), because he loved her, though the LORD had closed her womb” (vv. 4-5 NRSV, cf. TNIV). According to L. H. Brockington, “there is evidence elsewhere that families shared in the sacrificial meal (Dt. 12:18; 14:22-9; 15:19-23)” (Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, sec. 274 c, on 1 Sam. 1:4). The reading, “a double portion” for Hannah is based on the ancient Syriac version (cf. the NRSV text note b, “Syr: Meaning of Heb. uncertain). Brockington says, “The rendering of the Syriac ‘because he loved Hannah he gave her a double portion’ would give an immediate reason for the spiteful treatment of Hannah by Peninnah” (loc. cit.). The Hebrew has the feminine numeral tHaxa (’achath, ‘one’) and the dual form of Jxa (’aph, ‘nose’) which means “[the two] nostrils,” or “area of nose = face,” or “anger” (William L. Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 1971, 10^th corrected impression 1988, s.v. Jxa, ’aph, meaning no. 4). The recent Jewish translation says, “but to Hannah he would give one portion ^b-only–though^-b Hannah was his favorite–for the LORD had closed her womb” (1 Sam. 1:5 NJPS 1985, 1999; cf. RSV). The text note b-b says, “Meaning of Heb. uncertain.” Bar-Efrat’s comment strikes one as conjectural: “One portion only-though: the Heb. may also be interpreted, ‘one twofold portion–for’ (cf. the fivefold portion Joseph gave to Benjamin, Gen. 43:34); this interpretation better explains Peninnah’s reaction” (op. cit., on v. 5).

“With the attention shown to Hannah, the childless wife,” says Brockington, “we may compare that shown to Rachel. Childlessness was a reproach to a woman in Israel (Gen. 30:1)” (op. cit., on vv. 3-8). As a consequence, probably unintended on Elkanah’s part, “ Her rival (hT!saf3k9&, ki‘ ^asattāh) [i.e., Penninah] used to provoke her [i.e., Hannah] severely, to irritate her, because the LORD had closed her womb” (v. 6). On “rival,” McCarter says, “The Hebrew word became a technical term for a second wife or co-wife in the rabbinic period” (op. cit., on v. 6). “So it went on year by year,” we are told; “as often as she went up to the house of the LORD, she used to provoke her” (v. 7a). “Peninnah,” says Bar-Efrat, “is the opposite of Hannah. Not only does Peninnah have many children, whereas Hannah has none, but Peninnah deliberately hurts her rival, while Hannah refrains from paying back” (op. cit., on v. 7).

McKenzie says, “The house of the LORD usually refers to a temple (Jer. 7:12). But Josh. 18:1; Ps. 78:60 mention a tent of meeting or tabernacle in Shiloh, and 2 Sam. 7:6-7 denies that the LORD dwelt in a ‘house’ before Solomon’s Temple” (op. cit., on v. 7). According to McCarter, “The references to the house of the LORD in this story are surprising in view of the biblical tradition that no temple existed before the one in Jerusalem (see 2 Sam. 7:6; 1 Kings 8:16), but the Shilonite temple was known to Jeremiah (Jer. 7:12-14” (op. cit., on v. 7). In verse 9, the term “temple” (lkayhe, hēkal) apparently applies to the tabernacle (cf. “house of the LORD,” hvhy tyBe, bēth-YHWH,” v. 24).

“Therefore,” continues the report–resuming after the interval–“Hannah wept and would not eat” “v. 7b). Hannah’s husband Elkanah tries to console her. He asks, “Hannah, why do you weep? Why do you not eat? Why is your heart sad? Am I not more to you than ten sons?” (v. 8). Joy Osgood says,

In ancient society barrenness was regarded as a curse from God (1 Sam. 1:6), a personal disaster that condemned a woman to an uncertain future . . . Children, particularly sons, were an effective insurance policy for a mother in the event of her husband’s death. It was all very well for Elkanah to protest, ‘Am I not more to you than ten sons?’ (1 Sam. 1:8). Maybe so, while he lived, but in the event of his demise, Hannah’s future would be bitter. (The NIV Women’s Bible Commentary, 2002, pp. 154-155, on 1 Sam. 1:1-2:11)

But on this occasion, “After they had eaten and drunk at Shiloh, Hannah rose and presented herself before the LORD” (v. 9a). “Though Hannah does not eat,” says Bar-Efrat, “she waits until all have finished their meal” (op. cit., on v. 9). At that time “Eli the priest was sitting on the seat beside the doorpost of the temple (lkayhe, hēkal, see above) of the LORD” (v. 9b). According to McKenzie, “Eli’s seat beside the doorpost of the temple (or ‘sanctuary,’ Heb. ‘hekal’) allowed him to see Hannah praying outside of the temple [tent?] proper (see also 4:18)” (op. cit., on v. 9). Hannah “was deeply distressed,” we are told, “and prayed to the LORD, and wept bitterly” (v. 10). Eli, the priest noticed her distress (vv. 9-10, 12-14). In her prayer she made a vow. “O LORD of hosts, if only you will look on the misery of your servant, and remember me, and not forget your servant, but will give to your servant a male child, then I will set him before you as a nazirite until the day of his death. He shall drink neither wine nor intoxicants, and no razor (hr!Om, môrāh) shall touch his head” (v. 11 NRSV). For the words “as a nazirite until the day of his death,” the Hebrew text has only vyy0!Ha yme6y4-lKA (kol-y ^emê chayyāyw), “all the days of his life.” The words “as a nazirite,” ryz9n! (nāzîr, cf. Num. 6:2; Judg. 13:5) are added in the NRSV (contrast AV/KJV, RSV, TNIV, NJPS), inferred from the reference to the razor (hr!Om, môrāh), which Holladay defines as “shaving tool, razor Judg. 13:5; 16:17; 1 Sam. 1:11 (always in Nazirite formula)” (op. cit., s.v. hr!Om, môrāh, meaning no. 1. The dagger symbol [†] indicates that these are the only occurrences of the term in the Hebrew Bible). According to Bar Efrat,

The structure of Hannah’s vow is typical of vows in the Bible: First a condition is stated, and this is followed by a commitment if the condition is fulfilled (cf. Gen. 28:20-22; Judg. 11:30-31). Here the vow is preceded by an invocation of God. Long hair was characteristic of Nazirites, who devoted themselves to God (Num. 6:5). The word ‘Nazirite’ is actually used by the Septuagint in the present v. and by the Dead Sea manuscript 4QSam^a in v. 22. Samuel is also called a Nazirite in the postbiblical book of Sirach (46:13). (op. cit., on v. 9)

That Samuel was to be a nazirite is apparently understood from the Qumran (Dead Sea) manuscript of verse 22 (noted by Bar Efrat, cf my note on v. 22 below). It may have been inferred from the stated vows of separation and abstention. Unfortunately, I cannot verify Bar-Efrat’s claim that the word “nazirite” occurs in 1 Sam. 1:11 LXX or Sirach 46:13 LXX (Alfred Rahlfs, Septuaginta, 7^th ed., 2 vols., 1962) . In these texts I do not find the word “nazirite” (neither nazirai:oV, naziraios, cf, Judg. 13:5 LXX, nor naziraiovthV, naziraiotēs, Symmachus, Je 7:29 according to H. G. Liddell, Robert Scott and H. Stuart Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon; A Supplement, 1968, s.v. naziraiovthV, naziraiotēs). That Samuel was to be a nazirite is apparently understood from the Qumran manuscript of verse 22 and/or inferred from the stated vows of separation and abstention. McCarter says, “According to the regulations in Num. 6:1-21, a nazirite was a person designated to the service of the Lord by vows of separation and abstention from wine and cutting the hair. Samson is the chief example (see Judg. 13:5, 7).

As Hannah “continued praying before the LORD,” says the narrator, “Eli observed her mouth. Hannah was praying silently; only her lips moved, but her voice was not heard; therefore Eli thought she was drunk” (1 Sam. 1:12). “Silent prayer was uncommon,” says Bar-Efrat (op. cit., on v. 13). McKenzie says, “Eli though she was drunk, because prayers were not usually silent” (op. cit., on v. 13). “So Eli said to her, ‘How long will you make a drunken spectacle of yourself? Put away your wine’ ” (v. 14). She explains, answering, “No, my lord, I am a woman deeply troubled; I have drunk neither wine nor strong drink, but I have been pouring out my soul before the LORD. Do not regard your servant as a worthless woman, for I have been speaking out of my great anxiety and vexation all this time” (vv. 15-16). And with this answer, Eli was satisfied, and says, “Go in peace; the God of Israel grant the petition (hlAxew4, š ^e’ēlāh) you have made to him” (v. 17). According to McKenzie, “The petition you have made [is] the first of several word plays in this chapter on the name of Saul [lUxwA, šā’ûl, cf. 9:2], which sounds like the Hebrew verb for ‘ask, petition’ ” (ibid., on v. 17). With that, Hannah was satisfied. “And she said, ‘Let your servant find favor in your sight.’ Then the woman went to her quarters, ate and drank with her husband, and her countenance was sad no longer” (v. 18).

So, we are told, “they rose early in the morning and worshipped before the LORD; then they went back to their house (MtAyBe-lx, Uxboy0Ava, wayyāvō’û ’el-bêthām) at Ramah” (v. 19a). Bar-Efrat says, “They went back home [NJPS for NRSV ‘they went back to their house’]: This phrase often serves to mark the end of a story or an episode (e.g., 2:11)” (op. cit. on v. 19). According to the narrator, “Elkanah knew his wife Hannah, and the LORD remembered her. In due time Hanna conceived, and bore a son” (vv. 19b, 20a). According to McKenzie, “Elkanah knew his wife [is] an idiom for sexual relations” (op. cit., on v. 19). “She named him Samuel (lxeUmw4, š ^emû’ēl ),” we are told, “for she said, ‘I have asked him (vyT9&l4x9w4, š ^e’iltîw) of the LORD (hvAhy4me, mē-YHWH)’ ” v. 20b). “ ‘Asked’ (Heb. ‘sha’al’) is another pun on the name Saul,” says McKenzie (ibid., on v. 20). McCarter’s explanation is a little different. Referring to “I have asked him of the LORD,” he says, “Hannah is explaining the name Samuel (Hebrew shemu’el) as if it meant ‘He who is from God’ (sheme’el)” (op. cit., on v. 20).

About a year later, according to the narrator, “The man Elkanah and all his household went up to offer to the LORD the yearly sacrifice, and to pay his vow” (v. 21, cf. v. 3). But this time, “Hannah did not go up, for she said to her husband, “As soon as the child is weaned, I will bring him, that he may appear in the presence of the LORD, and remain there forever; I will offer him as a nazirite for all time” (v. 22). In this verse, the traditional Hebrew text (MT = the Massoretic Text) lacks the words that are underlined.. Their inclusion here is based on a Qumran manuscript (cf. NRSV text note f; cf. TNIV v. 22 text note a, though the words are not included in the TNIV text).

Elkanah agrees and says to Hannah, “Do what seems best to you, wait until you have weaned him; only–may the LORD establish his word” (v. 23a). According to Bar-Efrat, “Weaning used to take place after several years; according to 2 Macc. 7:27 after three years” (op. cit., on v. 22). “So the woman remained and nursed her son,” we are told, “until she weaned him. When she had weaned him, she took him up with her, along with a three-year-old bull (hwAlow4 Myr9PA, pārîm š ^elōšāh, lit. ‘three bulls’), an ephah of flour, and a skin of wine” (vv. 23b, 24a). In this verse the NRSV follows the Qumran manuscript the “Greek and the Syriac with “a three-year-old bull” for the Massoretic Text “three bulls” (cf. NRSV text note d; TNIV text and text note c). “Samuel’s age is not given,” says McKenzie, “but he is older than an infant or toddler” (op. cit., on vv. 22-24). “An ephah of flour (v. 24),” he adds, is “about half a bushel” (ibid.). Upon arrival, “Then they slaughtered the bull (rPAha, happār, lit. ‘the bull,’ not three bulls), and they brought the child to Eli” (v. 25). To Eli, Hannah says, “Oh, my lord! As you live, my lord, I am the woman who was standing here in your presence, praying to the LORD. For this child I prayed; and the LORD has granted me the petition (yt9lAxe8w4, š ^e’ēlātî) that I made (yT9l4xawA, šā’altî, lit ‘I asked’) to him” (vv. 26-27). Bar-Efrat says, “Hannah uses the same words as Eli did before (v. 17), to indicate to the priest that his blessing has materialized” (op. cit., on v. 27). McKenzie says, “The petition that I made [is] another pun on Saul’s name” (op. cit., on v. 17). “Therefore,” continues Hannah, “I have lent him (UhT9l4x9w4h9, hiš’iltihû) to the LORD; as long as he lives, he is given (lUxwA, šā’ûl) to the LORD” (v. 28). According to McKenzie, “Given in both occurrences in this verse [‘lent,’ ‘given’?] is yet another pun on Saul’s name. He is given is exactly the same as Saul’s name in Hebrew (‘sha’ul’) and could be translated, ‘he is Saul to the LORD.’ Some scholars believe, based on these puns, that this story was originally about Saul’s birth rather than Samuel’s. Or, they may be allusions to Saul as Israel’s first king” (ibid.). Bar-Efrat does not go so far. Earlier he notes that “The verb ‘sha’al’ (= ask) recurs in the narrative several times, more than is expressed in the translation (see also 2:20)” (op. cit., on v. 20).

Colossians 1:9-20

Paul’s Thanksgiving, continued

9 For this reason, since the day we heard it, we have not ceased praying for you and asking that you may be filled with the knowledge of God’s will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, 10 so that you may lead lives worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him, as you bear fruit in every good work and as you grow in the knowledge of God. 11 May you be made strong with all the strength that comes from his glorious power, and may you be prepared to endure everything with patience, while joyfully 12 giving thanks to the Father, who has enabled you to share in the inheritance of the saints in the light. 13 He has rescued us from the power of darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

The Supremacy of Christ

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers-all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He himself is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that he might come to have first place in everything. 19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20 and through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross. (Colossians 1:9-20, NRSV)

The following comments are based on relevant comments from those on Colossians 1:1-14 and 15-23 of May 4 and 5, 2009 (Monday and Tuesday in the week of the Fourth Sunday of Advent, Year One), when comments were repeated from April 28, 2008 (Monday in the week of the Sixth Sunday of Easter, Year Two), when comments were based on earlier comments, as noted there:

According to ancient records, Colossae “was devastated by an earthquake around 60 CE [A.D. 60], and it apparently never recovered as a thriving metropolis” (Paul J. Achtemeier, Joel B. Green and Marianne Meye Thompson, Introducing the New Testament; Its Literature and Theology, 2001, p. 407). Jerome Murphy-O’Connor refers to this earthquake (citing Tacitus, Ann. 14.27.1), “Both Laodicea and Hierapolis [towns near Colossae in the Lycus River Valley] were rebuilt, but Colossae never recovered. It’s long slide into oblivion terminated in the ninth century CE when the site was definitively abandoned” (The Oxford Bible Commentary, 2001, p. 1191 in the Introduction to Colossians). The traditional view is that Paul wrote to the Colossians from imprisonment in Rome, which began in the spring of A.D. 60, and that the letter to Philemon accompanied the letter to the Colossians. Paul commends Philemon as “useful both to you and to me” (Philem. 11), but makes no reference to the earthquake in either letter. Perhaps it happened later in the year, or perhaps Paul hadn’t heard the news. Papias, the early second century Bishop of Hierapolis, is quoted by later Christian writers regarding his contacts with those who had known the apostles.

The area remained important for the Christian community with churches at nearby Laodicea and Hierapolis. John is critical of the church at Laodicea in Revelation. “I know your works; you are neither cold nor hot. I wish that you were either cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I am about to spit you out of my mouth” (Rev. 3:15-16). Papias is famous for comments about the authorship of the Gospels, cited from a now lost work of Papias by Eusebius in the fourth century.

Paul begins his letter to the Colossians with his usual salutation, though very brief in comparison with some (e.g. Rom. 1:1-7). He includes Timothy as with him in sending the letter. “I Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God and Timothy our brother” (Col. 1:1). The letter is addressed “to the saints and faithful brothers and sisters in Christ in Colossae” (v. 2a), and Paul characteristic greeting follows: “Grace to you and peace from God our Father” (v. 2b).

After a characteristic, though brief salutation (Colossians 1:1-2), Paul continues with his thanksgiving for the Colossians. “In our prayers for you,” he says, “we always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (v. 3). And he states the reason, “for we have heard of your faith in Christ Jesus and of the love that you have for all the saints, because of the hope laid up for you in heaven” (vv. 4, 5a). Jennifer K. Berenson Maclean says, “Faith, love, and hope [are] a summary of Christian virtues (1` Cor. 13:13; 1 Thess. 5:8)” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Col. 1:3-5). “You have heard of this hope before in the word of the truth, the gospel that has come to you. (vv. 5b, 6a). Paul is thankful that the Colossian people have heard the Christian gospel and have responded accordingly, so that they are “bearing fruit”: “Just as it is bearing fruit and growing in the whole world,” he says, “so it has been bearing fruit among yourselves from the day you heard it and truly comprehended the grace of God” (v. 6b). From this way of describing how the Christian gospel came to Colossae, and in particular, from what Paul says next, we learn that Paul himself did not establish this church, and he has not been to Colossae. “This you learned from Epaphras, our beloved fellow servant. He is a faithful minister of Christ on your behalf, and he has made known to us your love in the Spirit” (vv. 7-8). And so we learn that “Epaphras [was the] founder of the church at Colossae, whose ministry the author [likely Paul, we would say] endorses (4:12-13; Philem. 23). But, as noted above, there has been an excellent beginning.

As today’s reading begins, Paul continues by telling the Colossian believers about his prayers for them. “For this reason, since the day we heard it, we have not ceased praying for you and asking that you may be filled with the knowledge of God’s will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, so that you may lead lives worthy (peripath:sai ajxivwV, peripatēsai axiōs, lit. ‘walk worthily’) of the Lord, fully pleasing to him, as you bear fruit in every good work and as you grow in the knowledge of God” (vv. 9-10). According to J. Paul Sampley, “Being filled and coming to fullness (see also v. 19, 25; 2:9-10) are ambivalent: the believers have come to fullness in Christ (2:10), yet here the author prays that they may be filled with proper wisdom” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Col. 1:9). Sampley comments on the words “lead lives worthy,” agreeing with the note above, “lit. ‘walk worthily,’ meaning conduct one’s life appropriately” (ibid., on v. 10). For Paul’s use of the word “walk” in this sense, we are reminded of the Rabbinical term halakah, “the term for a Rabbinic law,” according to Samuel Sandmel (Judaism and Christian Beginnings, 1978, p. 103). He adds that “the word means ‘walking,’ and by connotation it sets forth or guides the faithful in their walking, and living, in consistency with Scripture” (ibid.). We note that halakah (hkAlAh3, h^a lākāh), a post-biblical Hebrew word (cf. Marcus Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Jerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature, I, 1950, s.v. hkAlAh3, h^a lākāh [p. 353]), is a noun related to the common Hebrew word for “walk” (j`lahA, hālak). Walking thus becomes a metaphor for living one’s life.

“May you be made strong,” prays Paul, “with all the strength that comes from his glorious power, and may you be prepared to endure everything with patience, while joyfully giving thanks to the Father, who has enabled you to share in the inheritance of the saints in the light. Maclean sees here a “prayer for Colossians’ growth in knowledge (v. 9), moral maturity (v. 10), and endurance (v. 11)” (op. cit., on vv. 9-14). “He [God] has rescued us from the power of darkness,” says Paul, clearly mainly with reference to the Colossian believers, “and transferred us into the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness (a[fesiV, aphesis) of sins” (vv. 13-14). The phrase a[fesiV (tw:n) aJmartiw:n (aphesis [tōn] hamartiōn) has been translated “remission of sins” (e.g. Lk. 24:47 AV/KJV, NKJV; cf. ‘forgiveness of sins’ NRSV, TNIV). The etymology of “remit” and “remission” is comparable to that of ajfivhmi (aphiēmi) and a[fesiV (aphesis), and this terminology reminds us, at least, of the affirmation, “as far as the east is from the west, / so far he [i.e. the LORD] removes (qyH9r4h9, hirchîq [ejmavkrunen, emakrynen, LXX]) our transgressions from us” (Ps. 103:12). But in the NRSV, the word “remission” is limited in its use to the remission of debts (Deut. 15:1, 2, 9; 31:10; cf. Additions to Esther 2:18; 1 Macc. 15:5, remission of taxes) (Bruce M. Metzger, ed., NRSV Exhaustive Concordance, 1991, s.v. remission [p. 1050]). According to Maclean, “Release from slavery to the demonic powers (redemption) comes from the forgiveness and reconciliation available through Christ’s death (vv. 20, 21)” (ibid., on v. 14).

The sharp contrast between light and darkness will be elaborated further: They were “once estranged” (1:21), but are “now reconciled” (v. 22). They have “died” (3:3), but “have been raised with Christ” (3:1). Colossae is located about a hundred miles east of Ephesus, in the Lycus river valley. There are records of Jews living in the area, but the church at Colossae included mainly Gentile Christian converts. Paul criticizes religious views that apparently include aspects of Judaism, rules about “matters of food and drink or observing festivals, new moons, or sabbaths” (2:16).

Paul’s next paragraph is a profound christological statement. “He [i.e., Christ] is the image (eijkwvn, eikon) of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation,” says Paul; “for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers–all things have been created through him and for him” (Col. 1:15-16). The word eijkwvn (eikon) is translated “true form” in Hebrews (10:1 NRSV), referring to the realities in the heavenly sanctuary, as opposed to “only a shadow (skiav, skia),” referring to the tabernacle and sacrificial system of the Hebrew Bible. Here in Colossians, “Image,” says Jennifer K. Berenson Maclean, is “the perfect, visible manifestation of God.” And she adds, “Firstborn expresses priority and supremacy over all creation (v. 17 [15, 18?])” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on Col. 1:15). And as for the “thrones . . . powers,” she says they are “spiritual beings, probably hostile (1:13; 2:15; Eph 6:12)” (ibid., on v 16). According to J. Paul Sampley, “The affirmation of Christ’s active role in creation (see also Rom. 11:36; 1 Cor. 8:6; Heb. 1:2) corresponds to assertions made about Wisdom (Prov. 8:27-30) and about the Word (Jn. 1:1-3)” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Col. 1:16).

“He himself [i.e., Christ] is before all things,” says Paul, “and in him all things hold together” (v. 17). “He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that he might come to have first place in everything” (v. 18). As the “firstborn from the dead,” says Maclean, “Christ is preeminent among the children of God (Rom. 8:29; Rev. 1:5), and his resurrection is the prelude to the final resurrection (1 Cor. 15:23; Acts 26:23)” (op. cit., on v. 18). C. F. D. Moule has called this passage “The Great Christology”:

Nowhere in the Pauline epistles is there a richer and more exalted estimate of the position of Christ than here. His work is related not only to the rescue of mankind from sin, but also (perhaps with reference to current false teaching . . .) to the creation of the universe. He is associated both with the creation of the world and with God’s ‘new creation’, the church: He is both ‘the first-born of all creation’ (15) and ‘the first-born from the dead’ (18). He is the goal of creation (16, ‘all things were created . . . for him’; contrast 1 Cor 8:6 where only God himself is the goal) and ‘the head of the body, the church’ (18). (C. F. D. Moule, Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, 1962, reprinted 1972, sec. 865 b, p. 991, on Col. 1:15-23)

The text continues: “For in him all the fullness (plhvrwma, plērōma) of God was pleased to dwell” (v. 19). “Thus,” says Moule, “Jesus of Nazareth, who had been done to death as an insurrectionary some 30 years (or less) before, occupies a position uniquely close to God in His creative and redemptive work. And this is inseparably associated precisely with that death on the cross” (ibid.). It was on the cross that “God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things . . . by making peace through the blood of his cross” (v. 20).

Jennifer K. Berenson Maclean sums up this paragraph (vv. 15-20) as “the supremacy of Christ over the cosmos (vv. 15-17) and the church (vv. 18-20), taken from a hymn based on the figure of Wisdom (Prov 8; Sir. 24; Wis. 6-9; see also Jn. 1:1-18; Phil. 2:6-11)” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on vv. 15-20). Moule says, “It [i.e., the christology here] is (in all but the actual term) a ‘Logos’ christology, like Jn. 1:1ff.; cf. Heb. 1:1ff. But whereas the Jewish conception of God’s Wisdom or Word treats it as among created things, it would be a mistake to interpret [v.] 15 the first-born of all creation in this sense. . . . Accordingly, the phrase here must mean either ‘He who was born (later creeds would say ‘begotten’) before all creation’ (cf. 17, ‘He is before all things’), or ‘the one who holds authority over all creation’, as the first-born is supreme over the rest of the family” (op. cit., p. 991).

Luke 2:22-40

Jesus Is Presented in the Temple

22 When the time came for their purification according to the law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord 23 (as it is written in the law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male shall be designated as holy to the Lord”), 24 and they offered a sacrifice according to what is stated in the law of the Lord, “a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons.”

25 Now there was a man in Jerusalem whose name was Simeon; this man was righteous and devout, looking forward to the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit rested on him. 26 It had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord’s Messiah. 27 Guided by the Spirit, Simeon came into the temple; and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him what was customary under the law, 28 Simeon took him in his arms and praised God, saying,

29 “Master, now you are dismissing your servant in peace,

according to your word;

30 for my eyes have seen your salvation,

31 which you have prepared in the presence of all peoples,

32 a light for revelation to the Gentiles

and for glory to your people Israel.”

33 And the child’s father and mother were amazed at what was being said about him. 34 Then Simeon blessed them and said to his mother Mary, “This child is destined for the falling and the rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be opposed 35 so that the inner thoughts of many will be revealed-and a sword will pierce your own soul too.”

36 There was also a prophet, Anna the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was of a great age, having lived with her husband seven years after her marriage, 37 then as a widow to the age of eighty-four. She never left the temple but worshiped there with fasting and prayer night and day. 38 At that moment she came, and began to praise God and to speak about the child to all who were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem.

The Return to Nazareth

39 When they had finished everything required by the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth. 40 The child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom; and the favor of God was upon him. (Luke 2:22-40, NRSV)

The following comments are repeated here with editing and supplement from December 30, 2007 (the First Sunday after Christmas, Year Two):

On Friday of this week (Jan. 1, 2010) the Holy Day reading celebrates the circumcision, or the naming, of Jesus, “eight days” after his birth (Lk. 2:21; cf. Gen. 17:12). The Daily Office Lectionary Gospel reading for Holy Name is Matthew 1:18-25, in which the angel tells Joseph to name the son to be born “Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins” (Mt. 1:21; cf. Gabriel’s similar instruction to Mary, Lk. 1:31). According to James Kiefer,

On January 1st, we celebrate the Circumcision of Christ. Since we are more squeamish than our ancestors, modern calendars often list it as the feast of the Holy Name of Jesus, but the other emphasis is the older. Every Jewish boy was circumcised (and formally named) on the eighth day of his life, and so, one week after Christmas, we celebrate the occasion when Our Lord first shed His blood for us. It is a fit close for a week of martyrs, and reminds us that to suffer for Christ is to suffer with Him. (“The Holy Name of Jesus or, the Circumcision of Christ,” http://www.satucket.com/lectionary/Holy_Name.htm, a page on the web site, The Lectionary, Charles Wohlers, Webmaster, accessed December 27, 2009)

Today’s Daily Office Lectionary reading from Luke (Lk. 2:22-40) is also the Holy Day reading for the Feast of the Presentation of Our Lord Jesus Christ; Feast of the Purification of the Virgin; Candlemas Day (cf. the web site cited below). After the report of Jesus’ circumcision (v. 21), Luke tells us: “When the time came for their purification according to the law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord (as it is written in the law of the Lord, ‘Every firstborn male shall be designated as holy to the Lord’ [cf. Exod. 13:2, 21, 15), and they offered a sacrifice according to what is stated in the law of the Lord, ‘a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons [cf. Lev. 12:8]’ ” (Lk. 2:22-24). According to Marion Lloyd Soards, “The phrase their purification is ambiguous and likely refers to the parents, though there was no rite of purification for the father (or the newborn)” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Lk. 2:22-23). The regulation for purification of a woman after childbirth first stipulates bringing “a lamb in its first year for a burnt offering, and a pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering” (Lev. 12:6). But a qualification is added: “If she cannot afford a sheep, she shall take two turtledoves or two pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering; and the priest shall make atonement on her behalf, and she shall be clean” (Lev. 12:8). So, by following the latter requirement, Mary and Joseph indicate their relatively low socioeconomic status. By the traditional church-year dating of events, this visit to the temple would come after the (January 6) Epiphany celebration of the visit, homage and gifts of the Magi, which Matthew suggests was providential. “ The gifts they [the Magi] presented were, gold, frankincense, and myrrh, money, and money’s-worth. Providence sent this for a seasonable relief to Joseph and Mary in their present poor condition” (Henry, M. 1996, c1991. Matthew Henry's commentary on the whole Bible : Complete and unabridged in one volume . Hendrickson: Peabody, cited from Libronix Digital Library System). But in view of Herod’s order to execute “all the children in and around Bethlehem who were two years old or under, according to the time that he had learned from the wise men” (Mt. 2:16), we may surely date the visit of the Magi after the Presentation in the Temple.

Of the celebration of the Feast of the Presentation of Our Lord Jesus Christ; Feast of the Purification of the Virgin; Candlemas Day, Kiefer says,

Counting forward from December 25 as Day One, we find that Day Forty is February 2. A Jewish woman is in semi-seclusion for 40 days after giving birth to a son, and accordingly it is on February 2 that we celebrate the coming of Mary and Joseph with the infant Jesus to the Temple at Jerusalem (1) to offer sacrifice on behalf of Mary to mark the end of her seclusion (see Le 12:1-8), and (2) to ransom or redeem (buy back) Jesus as a first-born male (see Ex 13:11-13; 22:29; Nu 18:15-16; Dt 15:19). (“Feast of the Presentation of Our Lord Jesus Christ; Feast of the Purification of the Virgin; Candlemas Day,” http://www.satucket.com/lectionary/Purification.htm, a page on the Lectionary web site mentioned above, accessed December 27, 2009; you may need to copy and paste the URL in your browser.)

Luke continues by reporting the encounter of the holy family with Simeon, who “was righteous and devout, looking forward to the consolation of Israel,” and upon whom “the Holy Spirit rested” (v. 25). Luke tells us that “It had been revealed to him [i.e., Simeon] by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord’s Messiah” (v.26). Here, as often later in Luke-Acts, we are told that someone guided by the Holy Spirit proclaims the Lord’s salvation “Guided by the Spirit, Simeon came into the temple,” we are told, “and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him what was customary under the law” (v. 26), “Simeon took him [Jesus] in his arms and praised God” (v. 27). Kiefer describes what happened next. As Jesus and his parents entered the temple, “they were greeted by the aged Simeon. In a Sunday-School pageant, I [Kiefer], the narrator, said, ‘And now Simeon bursts into a spontaneous song of praise, assisted by the Temple Choir.’ His song, called the Nunc Dimittis, has always had a prominent role in Christian worship. Soards refers to this as “the fourth hymn” (on vv. 29-32, counting the Magnificat, 1:46-55; the Benedictus, 1:67-79; and the angels’ Gloria, 2:14 as the first three).

Master, now you are dismissing your servant in peace,

according to your word;

for my eyes have seen your salvation,

which you have prepared in the presence of all peoples,

a light for revelation to the Gentiles

and for glory to your people Israel. (Lk. 2:29-32, NRSV)

According to Eric Franklin, the episode in which “Jesus is Presented in the Temple” (Lk. 2:22-40) “allows Jesus to be seen as acknowledging the Jewish religious tradition which was focused ;in the temple and which ultimately made possible God’s final redemption in him. It also enables the temple to make its witness to him. Once more, Luke’s purpose in recounting the story controls the way in which he tells it” (The Oxford Bible Commentary, 2001, p. 929, on Lk. 2:22-40). Franklin notes that Simeon “is presented not merely as the ideal observer of the Jewish covenantal obligations, but also as one who is led by them to look for God’s further action,” and Franklin adds:

In words that reflect the Servant Song of Isaiah 49:5-6, Jesus is proclaimed as having a significance for ‘all peoples’. He is a ‘light’ to reveal God to the nations. God’s glory which is to be made known to them is to be seen in the child he holds in his arms whose birth in a manger causes the expectations of the earlier songs to be realized in an unexpected way. The salvation of God is to be achieved, not through naked power, but in the surrender of his Son. . . . Many will oppose him, but that will reveal the limited nature of their response to the God who has made them his people. (ibid., p. 930)

Jesus’ parents “were amazed at what was being said about him [Jesus]” (v. 33), but Simeon explained with a blessing, “This child is destined for the falling and the rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be opposed so that the inner thoughts of many will be revealed–and a sword will pierce your own soul too” (vv. 34-35). Franklin adds, “Even Mary, the true Israelite, will be pierced by the sword, not only of suffering, but also of judgement as she herself is called to move into a deeper understanding of the implications of Jesus. To be real, the grounds of the confidence expressed in her song have to be reviewed in the light of the babe who confirms it and makes it possible” (ibid.).

The holy family encounters another in the temple. “There was also a prophet, Anna the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher” (v. 36a). Luke describes her as “of a great age, having lived with her husband seven years after her marriage, then as a widow to the age of eighty-four. She never left the temple but worshiped there with fasting and prayer night and day” (v. 36b-37). According to David L. Tiede, revised by Christopher R. Matthews, “Anna’s ancestry in Israel (the tribe of Asher; see Deut 33:24-25) and her credentials as a prophet (cf. Philip’s daughters in Acts 21:9) and an aged widow (cf. Acts 6:1; 9:41; 1 Tim. 5:3-16; Jdt. 8:4-6) indicate her special status. Her piety is underlined by her constant presence in the temple” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Lk. 2:36-37). She too comes and offers praise, though the wording of her praise is not quoted. “ At that moment she came, and began to praise God and to speak about the child to all who were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem” (v. 38). “Finally,” says Franklin, “Anna makes her witness to ‘all those who were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem’. Jesus is the one through whom it will be accomplished, though again not in the manner that they will be expecting. Jerusalem will reject him and will instead follow a way that will lead to disaster (19:41-4). They will seem forsaken by God, but Anna is a reminder that the disaster is not God’s last word: Jesus remains for Jerusalem a sign of hope” (loc. cit.).

As the reading concludes, we are told that the Holy Family returned home. “When they had finished everything required by the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth” (v. 39). And as one might expect, “The child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom; and the favor of God was upon him” (v. 40). This, say Tiede and Matthews, is “a summary of Jesus’ boyhood’ (op. cit., on Lk. 2:40).

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net