Genesis 41:14-45

14 Then Pharaoh sent for Joseph, and he was hurriedly brought out of the dungeon. When he had shaved himself and changed his clothes, he came in before Pharaoh. 15 And Pharaoh said to Joseph, "I have had a dream, and there is no one who can interpret it. I have heard it said of you that when you hear a dream you can interpret it." 16 Joseph answered Pharaoh, "It is not I; God will give Pharaoh a favorable answer." 17 Then Pharaoh said to Joseph, "In my dream I was standing on the banks of the Nile; 18 and seven cows, fat and sleek, came up out of the Nile and fed in the reed grass. 19 Then seven other cows came up after them, poor, very ugly, and thin. Never had I seen such ugly ones in all the land of Egypt. 20 The thin and ugly cows ate up the first seven fat cows, 21 but when they had eaten them no one would have known that they had done so, for they were still as ugly as before. Then I awoke. 22 I fell asleep a second time and I saw in my dream seven ears of grain, full and good, growing on one stalk, 23 and seven ears, withered, thin, and blighted by the east wind, sprouting after them; 24 and the thin ears swallowed up the seven good ears. But when I told it to the magicians, there was no one who could explain it to me."

25 Then Joseph said to Pharaoh, "Pharaoh's dreams are one and the same; God has revealed to Pharaoh what he is about to do. 26 The seven good cows are seven years, and the seven good ears are seven years; the dreams are one. 27 The seven lean and ugly cows that came up after them are seven years, as are the seven empty ears blighted by the east wind. They are seven years of famine. 28 It is as I told Pharaoh; God has shown to Pharaoh what he is about to do. 29 There will come seven years of great plenty throughout all the land of Egypt. 30 After them there will arise seven years of famine, and all the plenty will be forgotten in the land of Egypt; the famine will consume the land. 31 The plenty will no longer be known in the land because of the famine that will follow, for it will be very grievous. 32 And the doubling of Pharaoh's dream means that the thing is fixed by God, and God will shortly bring it about. 33 Now therefore let Pharaoh select a man who is discerning and wise, and set him over the land of Egypt. 34 Let Pharaoh proceed to appoint overseers over the land, and take one-fifth of the produce of the land of Egypt during the seven plenteous years. 35 Let them gather all the food of these good years that are coming, and lay up grain under the authority of Pharaoh for food in the cities, and let them keep it. 36 That food shall be a reserve for the land against the seven years of famine that are to befall the land of Egypt, so that the land may not perish through the famine."Joseph's Rise to Power

37 The proposal pleased Pharaoh and all his servants. 38 Pharaoh said to his servants, "Can we find anyone else like this--one in whom is the spirit of God?" 39 So Pharaoh said to Joseph, "Since God has shown you all this, there is no one so discerning and wise as you. 40 You shall be over my house, and all my people shall order themselves as you command; only with regard to the throne will I be greater than you." 41 And Pharaoh said to Joseph, "See, I have set you over all the land of Egypt." 42 Removing his signet ring from his hand, Pharaoh put it on Joseph's hand; he arrayed him in garments of fine linen, and put a gold chain around his neck. 43 He had him ride in the chariot of his second-in-command; and they cried out in front of him, "Bow the knee!" Thus he set him over all the land of Egypt. 44 Moreover Pharaoh said to Joseph, "I am Pharaoh, and without your consent no one shall lift up hand or foot in all the land of Egypt." 45 Pharaoh gave Joseph the name Zaphenath-paneah; and he gave him Asenath daughter of Potiphera, priest of On, as his wife. Thus Joseph gained authority over the land of Egypt. (Genesis 41:14-45, NRSV)

The following comments are based on those of February 17, 2008 (The Second Sunday of Lent, Year Two), when comments were repeated from March 12, 2006 (The Second Sunday of Lent, Year Two):

At the chief baker’s suggestion (Gen. 41:9-13, the end of yesterday’s reading), “Pharaoh sent for Joseph, and he was hurriedly brought out of the dungeon (rOB, bôr)” (v. 14a). According to John D. Levenson, “The Heb. word for dungeon (also in 40:15) is the same as that for the “pit” into which Joseph’s brothers threw him in 37:20, 22, 24, 28. The chief cupbearer’s belated act of remembrance has suddenly reversed Joseph’s repeated descents–into the pit, into Egypt, into prison” (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, on Gen. 41.14). After shaving himself and changing his clothes, “he came in before Pharaoh” (v. 14b). “For the fourth time,” says Levenson, “Joseph’s clothes are changed (the previous instances are in 37:3, 23; 39:12), this time (like the first) as a sign of elevation” (ibid.). The narrator continues: “And Pharaoh said to Joseph, ‘I have had a dream and there is no one who can interpret (rtep0o, pōthēr, participle) it. I have heard it said that when you hear a dream you can interpret (rTop4l9, liphtōr, infinitive) it” (v. 15). For us as readers, this ability of Joseph has been demonstrated; but we are reminded that it is a divine gift. “It is not I (yd!7fAl4B9, bil‘ādâ),” says Joseph; “God will give Pharaoh a favorable answer (hfo&r4Pa MOlw4-tx, hn,f3y1& Myh9lox$, ’ ^elōhîm ya‘ ^aneh ’eth-š ^elôm par‘ōh, lit. ‘God will answer Pharaoh peace/welfare’)” (v. 16). The preposition and suffix translated “It is not I” is translated by William L. Holladay, “apart from, except for . . . [here] by extension, I am not involved” (A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 1971, 10^th corrected impression 1988, s.v. *ydef3l4Ba, bal‘ ^adê). For “It is not I” (NRSV, cf. “Not I!” NJPS 1985, 1999), older translations have, “It is not in me” (AV/KJV, JPS 1917). Commenting on the latter, Rabbi J. H. Hertz says, “Pharaoh assumed that Joseph was a professional interpreter of dreams. Joseph’s answer is a fine combination of religious sincerity and courtly deference” (Pentateuch & Haftorahs, 2^nd ed., 24^th printing, 1981, on Gen. 41:16). David M. Carr says, “Joseph denies having any occult art and ascribes his skill solely to God” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Gen. 41:16). The Rabbi, commenting on “an answer of peace” (JPS, for “a favorable answer” NRSV), says, “an answer that will correspond to the needs of Pharaoh and his people” (loc. cit.). Ronald Hendel also comments: “Joseph’s protestation shows his wisdom, piety, and humility, which make him the apt instrument for God’s interpretation” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Gen. 41:16).

With this understanding established, Pharaoh describes his dream:

In my dream I was standing on the banks of the Nile; and seven cows, fat and sleek, came up out of the Nile and fed in the reed grass. Then seven other cows came up after them, poor, very ugly, and thin. Never had I seen such ugly ones in all the land of Egypt. The thin and ugly cows ate up the first seven fat cows, but when they had eaten them no one would have known that they had done so, for they were still as ugly as before. Then I awoke. (Gen. 41:17-21, NRSV)

Rabbi Hertz comments on “such as I never saw” (JPS, cf. AV/KJV, for “Never had I seen such” NRSV, cf. “never had I seen their likes” NJPS): “Pharaoh colours the recital by giving expression to the feelings which the dream excited” (op. cit., on v. 19). But there was another dream. “I fell asleep a second time,” says Pharaoh,

and I saw in my dream seven ears of grain, full and good, growing on one stalk, and seven ears, withered, thin, and blighted by the east wind, sprouting after them; and the thin ears swallowed up the seven good ears” (Gen. 41:22-24a, NRSV)

“But when I told it to the magicians,” says Pharaoh, “there was no one who could explain it to me” (v. 24b). This, of course, is by now the explanation we might have expected. Joseph has the proper explanation. He “said to Pharaoh, ‘Pharaoh’s dreams are one and the same; God has revealed to Pharaoh what he is about to do” (v. 25). Rabbi Hertz comments on “is one” from “The dream . . . is one” (literal, as in JPS, AV/KJV) for “[Pharaoh’s] dreams are one and the same” (NRSV, cf. “it is the same dream” NJPS): “The two dreams have the same meaning. They are a foreboding of what God is about to do” (op. cit., on v. 25). Joseph proceeds to the interpretation. “The seven good cows are seven years, and the seven good ears are seven years; the dreams are one. The seven lean and ugly cows that came up after them are seven years, as are the seven empty ears blighted by the east wind. They are seven years of famine” (vv. 26-27). Joseph explains:

It is as I told Pharaoh; God has shown to Pharaoh what he is about to do. There will come seven years of great plenty throughout all the land of Egypt. After them there will arise seven years of famine, and all the plenty will be forgotten in the land of Egypt; the famine will consume the land. The plenty will no longer be known in the land because of the famine that will follow, for it will be very grievous. And the doubling of Pharaoh's dream means that the thing is fixed by God, and God will shortly bring it about. (Gen. 41:28-32, NRSV)

Commenting on “shall consume the land” (JPS, AV/KJV, for NRSV “will consume the land”), the Rabbi explains, “i.e. the people of the land (Onkelos)” (ibid., on v. 30). According to Hendel, “Joseph’s speech to Pharaoh is twofold. In the first part, the interpretation (vv. 25-32), Joseph discerns God’s plan through the coded symbolism of the dream. The doubling of Pharaoh’s dream is part of the code, meaning that the plan is fixed by God and imminent (v. 32)” (op. cit., on vv. 25-36).

Joseph proposes a remedy, a plan of action. “Now therefore let Pharaoh select a man who is discerning and wise, and set him over the land of Egypt” (v. 33). The plan includes organizational principles.

Let Pharaoh proceed to appoint overseers over the land, and take one-fifth of the produce of the land of Egypt during the seven plenteous years. Let them gather all the food of these good years that are coming, and lay up grain under the authority of Pharaoh (hfor4Pa-dya, yad-Par‘ōh, lit. ‘hand of Pharaoh’) for food in the cities, and let them keep it. That food shall be a reserve for the land against the seven years of famine that are to befall the land of Egypt, so that the land may not perish through the famine. (Gen. 41:34-36, NRSV)

Rabbi Hertz says of “the hand of Pharaoh” (JPS for NRSV “the authority of Pharaoh”), “i.e. in the royal granaries,” and of “in the cities,” he explains, “Where the royal granaries were” (op. cit., on v. 35). “Joseph explains,” says the Rabbi, “how God gives Pharaoh the answer of peace (v. 16). The interpretation of the dream is supplemented by the practical advice as to how the coming crisis should be met. Joseph the dreamer and saint proves himself in an eminent degree a man of practical affairs” (ibid., on vv. 33-36). According to Hendel, “The second part of the speech (vv. 33-36) shows Joseph’s own practical wisdom. On the basis of his knowledge of God’s plan he formulates a human plan, showing great insight and organizational planning. His advice to Pharaoh to select a man who is discerning and wise (v. 33) is followed by a plan that is discerning and wise, making Pharaoh’s choice an easy one” (loc. cit.). Levenson says,

Unlike the implication of Joseph’s own two dreams (37:5-11), the domination of the weak over the strong is not the last word. Foresight and prudence, Joseph tells Pharaoh, can enable the land to survive catastrophe. As things turn out, the survival of Egypt will have a more particular meaning as well: It foreshadows and enables the healing of the rift between Joseph and his brothers. (op. cit., on vv. 323-36)

The narrator continues: “The proposal pleased Pharaoh and all his servants. Pharaoh said to his servants, ‘Can we find anyone else like this–one in whom is the spirit of God (Myh9lox$ H1Ur, rû ^acch ’ ^elōhîm)?” (vv. 37-38). Rabbi Hertz says, “in whom the spirit of God is,” means “combining the supernatural power of interpreting dreams with the practical sagacity of a statesman” (op. cit. on v. 38). According to Hendel, “The mention of God in his praise of Joseph shows Pharaoh’s own piety. God may be an ecumenical term here (and perhaps in vv. 14-32; 39:9; 40:8, all spoken by Joseph) that does not make a distinction between Joseph’s and Pharaoh’s god, or it may imply Pharaoh’s recognition of Joseph’s God” (op. cit., on vv. 37-44). And Pharaoh continues: “So Pharaoh said to Joseph, ‘Since God (Myh9lox$, ’ ^elōhîm) has shown you all this, there is no one so discerning and wise as you. You shall be over my house, and all my people shall order themselves (qw16y9, yišaq) as you command; only with regard to the throne will I be greater than you” (vv. 39-40). Although no surprise on Joseph’s part is indicated here, this is surely more than he could have expected or hoped for, having just come from the dungeon (v. 14). “With the words “over my house,” says Rabbi Hertz, “He makes him Grand Vizier”; and of “be ruled” (JPS for NRSV “order themselves”), he explains, “Or, ‘do homage’ ” (op. cit. on v. 40). “Pharaoh shows his own wisdom by appointing Joseph governor of the land,” says Hendel; of the words “Only with regard . . . greater than you,” he adds, “Pharaoh’s statement to Joseph is breathtaking for a former slave and prisoner” (loc. cit.). “Joseph is once again second in rank,” says Levenson (op. cit., on v. 40), with reference to his earlier note. “The tale ends where it began ([39:] 2) with an affirmation of God’s presence in Joseph’s affairs and the success it brings. Even in prison, the young man who had been second in rank in his family (37:3), and second in rank in the chief steward’s household ([39:] 4-6) achieves the same status, when the warden puts him in charge of the other prisoners” (ibid., on 39:19-23). With reference to Joseph’s being second to Pharaoh, Levenson says,

Joseph will indeed rule, just as his brothers feared (37:8, 10-11), but with this crucial qualification: His rule will be rooted not in sheer power, but in the benefit he provides to the less fortunate. This corresponds to an ideal of kingship widespread in the ancient Near East, in which the king is the rescuer and servant of the people (cf. Judg. 11:4-11). (ibid., on 41:40)

After Pharaoh says to Joseph, “See, I have set you over all the land of Egypt” (v. 41), he presents him with symbols of that authority. “Removing his signet ring from his hand, Pharaoh put it on Joseph's hand; he arrayed him in garments of fine linen (wwe, šēš), and put a gold chain around his neck” (v. 42). Giving him the “signet ring,” says Rabbi Hertz, was “thereby symbolically endowing him with royal authority” (op. cit., on v. 42). “His signet ring,” says Carr, “empowered Joseph to act as Pharaoh’s representative” (op. cit., on v. 42). “This,” says Levenson, “is Joseph’s fifth and final change of clothes” (op. cit. on v. 42). Holladay defines the word translated “fine linen” as “(Egyptian) linen” (op. cit., s.v. wwe, šēš). The Rabbi says “the Heb. word comes from the Egyptian. It is the material worn by the royal family and the highest officials of the kingdom.” And he adds that

a gold chain [is] the gold collar appertaining to the office of Grand Vizier. This is another instance of the remarkable historical exactness of the Joseph narrative. ‘No ancient civilization was more distinct and unique than that of Egypt. Her customs, her language, and her system of writing were shared by no other people; and yet, at every point, the narrative reveals a thorough familiarity with Egyptian life. Peculiar Egyptian customs are also reflected in the stories; as, for example, the giving of the much-prized golden collar, which was bestowed upon a public servant for distinguished achievement’ (F. C. Kent). (loc. cit.)

As a further symbol of Joseph’s authority, “He [i.e., Pharaoh] had him [i.e., Joseph] ride in the chariot of his second-in-command; and they cried out in front of him, ‘Bow the knee (j`r27b4xa, ’avrēk)!’ Thus he set him over all the land of Egypt” (v. 43). Rabbi Hertz explains “second chariot” (JPS, AV/KJV, for NRSV, NJPS “chariot of his second-in-command”) as “next to Pharaoh’s. Horses and chariots were introduced into Egypt during the Hyksos period” (ibid., on v. 43). The word translated “bow the knee” (AV/KJV, NRSV) is left untranslated in the Jewish translations, “Abrech” (JPS) or “Abrek!” (NJPS). According to Holladay, this variety indicates uncertainty; the term is a “shout before Joseph’s chariot Gen. 41:43; ? Egyptian ? explained [e.g., AV/KJV, NRSV] as Hebrew I jrb [b-r-k] imperative ‘make obeisance’ ” (op. cit., s.v. j`r2b4xa, ’avrēk). According to the Rabbi, “abrech” [JPS] is “probably an Egyptian word similar in sound to the Hebrew word meaning ‘to kneel’ (RV Margin)” (loc. cit.).

Joseph’s descent, so to speak, from the pit near Shechem (Gen. 37:24), to the Egyptian king’s prison (39:20) was a long, slow ordeal; now the narrator takes his time in describing Joseph’s ascent. “Moreover Pharaoh said to Joseph, ‘I am Pharaoh, and without your consent no one shall lift up hand or foot in all the land of Egypt’ ” (41:44). Rabbi Hertz says, “lift up his hand or his foot” (JPS, literal, for NRSV “lift up hand or foot”) means “do anything” (ibid., on v. 44). Clearly, the statement is hyperbole.

Pharaoh gives Joseph a new, Egyptian name, “Zaphenath-paneah,” and an Egyptian wife, “Asenath daughter of Potiphera, priest of On” (v. 45a). Rabbi Hertz points out that in Joseph’s receiving “a new name on his state appointment,” they followed “both an Egyptian and a Hebrew custom; e.g. Num. xiii, 16”:

Egyptologists explain that Zaphenath means ‘food-man’, and paneah, ‘of life,’ i.e. the Chief Steward in the realm in face of Famine (Kyle). The importance of the change of name in the story lies in the fact that it helps to conceal the identity of Joseph when his brethren come to Egypt. (ibid., on Gen. 41:45).

“On,” adds the Rabbi, was “later known as Heliopolis, near Cairo. [It ] was the centre of Sun worship in Egypt” (ibid.). According to Hendel, “Joseph’s new name also signals his new ascent in status; its meaning is obscure, but has to do with ‘life’ (Egyptian ankh).” He adds that, “Joseph’s marriage to an Egyptian woman, Asenath, seems to carry no sense of impropriety” (op. cit., on v. 45). Later, likely in response to some sense of impropriety, the work known as Joseph and Asenath, tells the story in a way that shows that Asenath, the daughter of an Egyptian priest, converted to the worship of Israel’s God before the marriage. Levenson tells the story:

In Egyptian, Asenath means ‘the one who belongs to (the goddess) Neith.’ Since Jewish law does not recognize any marriage between a Jew and a gentile . . . Jewish tradition came to interpret Asenath as the prototypical convert to Judaism. Her powerful story is told at length in an important Hellenistic novella, “Joseph and Asenath.’ Rabbinic tradition identifies her father, Potiphera, with the Potiphar of ch. 39 (b. Sot. 13b), but this is unlikely. (op. cit., on v. 45)

Although he takes notice of some early Christian interest in the Joseph and Asenath story, C. Burchard concludes the following:

It seems safe to assume that Joseph and Asenath was composed for Jews, both born and naturalized, including perhaps those ‘God-fearing’ sympathizers who thought and lived Jewish but never crossed the line formally and were seldom pressed to do so. The document reminds not only the Jews of the privileges they have always enjoyed but also the converts of what they, or their forefathers, gained by crossing over to Judaism. (C. Burchard, “Introduction” to “Joseph and Asenath,” in James H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, II, p. 195)

As the reading closes, we are reminded, “Thus Joseph gained authority over the land of Egypt” (v. 45b).

Romans 6:3-14

3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.

5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin. 7 For whoever has died is freed from sin. 8 But if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. 10 The death he died, he died to sin, once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God. 11 So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.

12 Therefore, do not let sin exercise dominion in your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions. 13 No longer present your members to sin as instruments of wickedness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and present your members to God as instruments of righteousness. 14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace. (Romans 6:3-14, NRSV)

The following comments are based on readings on Romans 6:1-11 and vv. 12-23 of March 20 and 21, 2009 (Friday and Saturday in the week of the Third Sunday of Lent, Year One), when comments were repeated from June 28, 2008 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 22, Year Two), when comments were repeated with editing and supplement from March 16, 2007 (Friday in the week of the Third Sunday of Lent, Year One), when comments were combined with revision and supplement from June 26, 2004, in an email sent June 25, 2004 for June 26-27, from March 4, 2005, two years ago (Friday in the week of the Third Sunday of Lent, Year One), from July 1, 2006 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 22, Year Two), and from March 12, 2006 (the Second Sunday in Lent, Year Two).

Paul has presented his case for justification (righteousness) by faith (through trust) in Christ in Romans, chapters three and four with a description of the resulting benefits, “since we are justified by faith” (5:1, cf. vv. 1-11). The concept is further explained by the comparison and contrast of Adam and Christ and the reversal of the consequences of Adam’s transgression by Jesus’ act of righteousness which brings the free gift of righteousness (5:12-21). Paul is emphatic in the conclusion of the comparison. “For just as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous” (5:19). He anticipates further topics, saying, “But law came in, with the result that the trespass multiplied; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, just as sin exercised dominion in death, so grace might also exercise dominion through justification leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” (vv. 20-21).

In the continuation, Paul wards off a misunderstanding of the statement, “where sin increased, grace abounded all the more” (5:20). He asks, “What then are we to say? Should we continue in sin in order that grace may abound?” (6:1). His immediate answer to the hypothetical question is a resounding “By no means!” (v. 2a, mh; gevnoito, mē genoito, lit. ‘may it never happen!,’ AV/KJV ‘God forbid’). According to Daniel B. Wallace, “In 12 of Paul’s 14 uses [of mh; gevnoito (mē genoito)] ‘it expresses the apostle’s abhorrence of an inference which he fears may be (falsely) drawn from his argument’ (Burton, Moods and Tenses, 79 [sec. 177])” (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics; An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, 1996, p. 481, in a footnote). Another rhetorical question drives the point home. “How can we who died to sin go on living in it?” (v. 2b). Neil Elliott explains that “Yes” would be the answer “Only if grace were simply a matter of being relieved of the punishment for trespasses. But it is ‘much more’ (5:12-21)” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Rom. 6:1). Another question points to the way we are delivered from the power of sin. “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?” (v. 3). The cure for the power of sin is presented here as participating with Christ Jesus in the events of holy week. “So you must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 6:11). To be "baptized into Christ Jesus” is to be “baptized into his death” (v. 3), and to be “buried with him by baptism into death” (v. 4). In this way, the power of sin, our slavery to sin (vv. 16-17), is broken.

A Quaker view of Paul’s description of being “baptized into Christ Jesus” as being “baptized into his death” (Rom. 6:3) would suggest that being baptized into death is no more like being immersed in water than is being “baptized into Moses” (1 Cor. 10:2). In neither case was water essential. The salvation of the Israelites who followed Moses through the sea was in being kept dry. But what they would mean–certainly what I mean–is that it is the spiritual reality that counts. I have other Christian friends who would say water baptism is an outward sign of an inward reality. Historically, Quakers have insisted on that inward reality. But what is the inward reality? The death is the crucifixion of “our old self” which destroys “the body of sin” so that we are no longer “enslaved to sin” (v. 6). The other side of this a resurrection to “newness of life” (v. 4), and the hope of being “united with him in a resurrection like his” (v. 5). “For whoever has died to sin,” says Paul, “is freed from sin” (v. 7). If our participation, our reenactment of the events of Holy Week, if you will, includes being baptized into the death of Christ, it also includes the hope of participating in his resurrection from death. “But if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him” (v. 8). Since Christ has been raised from death, it “no longer has dominion over him” (v. 10), for he “died to sin, once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God” (v. 10). And we are in a position to “consider [ourselves] dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus” (v. 11). The power of sin is broken. Later in chapter 6, Paul reminds us that since we have been set free from the power of sin, we should “not let sin exercise dominion in your mortal bodies” (v. 12). We must “now present [our] members as slaves to righteousness for sanctification” (v. 19). But we may rejoice in being freed from the power of sin. So there is a future resurrection for us as well as a present “newness of life” as we are “alive to God in Christ Jesus.”

As we continue, Paul discusses implications for our present living. Elsewhere, he says, “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who is at work in you, enabling you” (Phil. 2:12-13). We need to continue to be intentional about Christian faith and living. Not that we are left to our own resources, “for . . . God . . . is at work in you.” Paul will describe living according to the Spirit in detail in Romans, chapter 8. But here he exhorts us. We still have a choice, so Paul gives strong warnings. As already noted, he says, “Therefore, do not let sin exercise dominion in your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions” (v. 12). “No longer present your members to sin as instruments of wickedness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and present your members to God as instruments of righteousness” (Rom. 6:13). “For sin will nave no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace” (v. 14). “Should we continue in sin in order that grace may abound? By no means! (vv. 1-2). “What then? Should we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!” (v. 15). Another rhetorical question states the alternatives: “Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?” (v. 16).

Today’s reading concludes at this point. But since this is the first of four daily readings selected from Romans for Sundays of Lent, and the next reading will be from chapter 8, we may take note of the continuation here, in which Paul gives thanks for the more positive and hopeful side of his message. “ But thanks be to God that you, having once been slaves of sin, have become obedient from the heart to the form of teaching to which you were entrusted, and that you, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness” (vv. 17-18). Before proceeding, Paul admits to forming his message to fit his audience. “I am speaking in human terms (ajnqrwvpinon, anthrōpinon) because of your natural limitations” (v. 19a, cf. NRSV text note a, ‘Gk. the weakness of your flesh’). The present demand is to turn from sin, and turn to righteousness. “For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to greater and greater iniquity, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness for sanctification” (v. 19b).

“When you were slaves of sin,” Paul reminds his readers, “you were free in regard to righteousness” (v. 20). But he questions the benefits of that situation. “So what advantage (kavrpoV, karpos, lit. ‘fruit’) did you then get from the things of which you now are ashamed?” he asks. The end (tevloV, telos) of those things is death” (v. 21). He also reminds us of the advantage that pertains to righteous living. “But now that you have been freed from sin and enslaved to God, the advantage (kavrpoV, karpos, lit. ‘fruit’) you get is sanctification. The end is eternal life” (v. 22).

Wilbur T. Dayton labels the larger unit here (6:12-23) “A Holy Life,” and verses 12-14, “A New King” (The Wesleyan Bible Commentary, V, 1965, pp. 44-45). “Sin . . . was really a tyrant dominating your life and forcing it into channels you did not approve.” Dayton continues:

God never intended that the desires (Old English, “lusts”) of the body should be the master. They were made to be our servants for the development of a good and constructive life of happiness for the creature and to the credit and glory of God. But when the servant becomes king and rules to our ruin, we must rise up in the power of Christ, dethrone the natural impulses and desires, purify them in the cleansing fountain, and put them back in their place as servants. Only thus can the body be the holy temple of God. (ibid., p. 45)

“For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to greater and greater iniquity, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness for sanctification” (v. 19b). Dayton calls this “A New Principle of Conduct,” leading to “A New Result” (ibid., p. 46). As noted above, the advantages are sanctification and eternal life (v. 22). Paul summarizes: “For the wages of sin is death (cf. v. 21), but the free gift of God is eternal life (cf. v. 22) in Christ Jesus our Lord” (v. 23).

John 5:19-24

19 Jesus said to them, "Very truly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing on his own, but only what he sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise. 20 The Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing; and he will show him greater works than these, so that you will be astonished. 21 Indeed, just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whomever he wishes. 22 The Father judges no one but has given all judgment to the Son, 23 so that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Anyone who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. 24 Very truly, I tell you, anyone who hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life, and does not come under judgment, but has passed from death to life. (John 5:19-24, NRSV)

For today and next Sunday (March 7, 2010), comments are repeated from January 27, 2010 (Wednesday in the week of the Third Sunday after the Epiphany, Year Two), when the reading, John 5:19-29, covered both of the present Sunday readings. The earlier sources are indicated there.

After Jesus heals the lame man on the sabbath (Jn. 5:1-9), the lame man is challenged by “the Jews” (vv. 10-12), who then “started persecuting Jesus, because he was doing such things on the sabbath” (v. 16). In these first encounters with the religious leadership, here called “the Jews,” it is noted that a running debate begins here that continues in the passages set in Jerusalem (5:19-47; 7:14-52; 8:12-59; 9:13-41; 10:19-39). Jesus debate with the Jews after the healing of the lame man at the pool led to the issue of Jesus’ identity. When he referred to God as “his own Father,” they “were seeking all the more to kill him,” not only for breaking the sabbath but “making himself equal to God” (Jn. 5:18). As the debate continues, Jesus compares his work to that of the Father. “Very truly,” he says, “I tell you, the Son can do nothing on his own, but only what he sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise” (v. 19). And Jesus promises “greater works”: “The Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing; and he will show him greater works than these, so that you will be astonished” (v. 20). Specifically, these greater works are raising the dead. “Indeed,” he says, “just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whomever he wishes” (v. 21). Right at the outset of several chapters of debate and controversy with “the Jews,” Jesus claims divine prerogatives, to give life (v. 21), and to judge human beings. “The Father judges no one,” says Jesus, “but has given all judgment to the Son” (v. 22). Obery M. Hendricks, Jr., says, “On the Son as judge, see Mt. 19:28; 25:31-46” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Jn. 5:22). The Father’s giving “all judgment to the Son,” says Jesus, is for the purpose “so that ( i{na, hina) all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father” (v. 23a). The conjunction i{na (hina) can introduce a result, but its use here is “to denote purpose, aim or goal, in order that, that [in a] final sense” (Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich [BDAG], A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3^rd ed., 2000, s.v. i{na, hina, meaning (1) (a) (b) ). So Jesus claims that it was the Father’s purpose for him to exercise divine prerogatives. He adds “Anyone who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him” (v. 23b). This connection to the Father, the claim for which clearly in John’s account rubs the Jewish leaders the wrong way, relates to the motif throughout John, including the narrative of the arrest, trial, crucifixion and resurrection, that despite all appearances to the contrary, he, not the Jewish leaders, is clearly in control, so much so that what is called the “Passion Narrative” in the other Gospels, is in John’s Gospel called “the Book of Glory” (cf. Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel according to John XIII-XXI, Anchor Bible, 29A, 1966, 2^nd ed., 19^th printing, 1982, section III, on Jn. 13:1-20:31). His opponents apparently had no idea what they were up against.

The themes introduced here recur throughout John, reminding us, for example, of Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus in chapter three. Brown comments on these verses:

In vs. 19 Jesus tells the Jewish authorities that there is nothing arrogant in what he has said. He is not a rebellious son setting himself up as a rival to the Father; rather, he is completely dependent on the Father and claims nothing on his own. That Jesus does none of his works on his own reflects a favorite theme in John (also, ix 4). John also tells us that none of what Jesus says is his own (iii 34, viii 26, xii 49), and that the Son did not come of his own accord (vii 28, viii 42). All of this is summed up in x 30: “The Father and I are one.” (ibid., p. 218, on Jn. 5:19, cf. vv. 16-30).

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net