Lamentations 2:1-9

The following comments are based on relevant comments from October 21, 2009 (Wednesday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 19, Year One), when the reading was Lamentations 2:8-15, on comments of March 19, 2008 (Wednesday of Holy Week, Year Two), and earlier comments as noted there.

Lamentations has been described as “a sequence of five lyric poems that lament the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 586 BCE (see 2 Kings 25:8-21)” (F. W. Dobbs-Allsopp, NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, Introduction to Lamentations). Remarkably, however, while there are eight references to Jerusalem’s “enemies” (1:2, 5, 10, 21; 2:16, 22; 3:46, 52) and other references to the “enemy” (singular), and exile is mentioned twice (1:3; 4:22), the Babylonians are never mentioned as such. Based on Lamentations, it is the LORD that has brought about Jerusalem’s disaster.

Chapter 2 of Lamentations has been called “The People’s Agony and their Cry to God for Mercy” ( R. B. Y. Scott & Roland E. Murphy, NOAB, 2^nd ed., 1994, on Lam. 2:1-22). Daniel Grossberg just calls it “the second lament,” but characterizes it as angry in tone. “In contrast to the previous ch.,” he says, “where the tone is one of despair and mourning, the tone of this ch. is angry. God is depicted throughout as an angry enemy who destroyed the physical structures of Jerusalem with violent force” (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, on Lam. 2:1-22).

The acrostic pattern continues, beginning again at the beginning of the alphabet: “How (hk!yx2, ’êkāh) the Lord in his anger / has humiliated daughter Zion!” (Lam. 2:1a). “The Lord has destroyed (fl01b9, billa‘ ) without mercy / all the dwellings of Jacob” (v. 2a). Note the following (repeating the first two letters): hk!yx2, ’êkāh, “How” (Lam. 2:1, NRSV; “Alas!” NJPS; cf. 1:1); fl01b9, billa‘, “has destroyed” (v. 2, NRSV; “laid waste” NJPS); fd1G0!, gāda‘, “cut down” (v. 3); j`r1D!, dārak, “has bent” (v. 4, NRSV; “bent” NJPS, in the sense of “draw [a bow],” cf. William L. Holladay, Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon, 10<sup>th</sup> printing, 1985, s.v. j`r1DA); hy!h!, hāyāh,” has become [like]” (v. 5 NRSV; “has acted [like]” NJPS); smoH4Y0av1, wayyachmōs, “has broken down” (v. 6 NRSV; “has stripped” NJPS); Hn1z!. zānach, “has scorned” (v. 7 NRSV; “has rejected” NJPS); bw1H!, chāšav. “determined” (v. 8 NRSV; “resolved” NJPS); Ufb9F!, tov‘û, “have sunk” (v. 9). One notes that most of these alphabetical lines begin with the verb, and the verbs describe devastation. It’s not the enemy nation, Babylon, that has brought about the devastation , but rather, the Lord (usually yn!dox3 rather than hvhy (vv. 1, 2, 5, 7a, cf. 1:14; the Biblica Hebraica Stuttgartensia [BHS] has notes for each of these indicating that many manuscripts have the latter). “The first eight verses,” says Dobbs-Allsopp, “focus on the Divine Warrior’s battle against Jerusalem” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Lam. 2:1-8). The verbs listed above describe one crippling action after another, which Zion blames on the Lord.

In verse 8, we are told, “The LORD (hvhy, YHWH) determined (bw1HA, chāšav) to lay in ruins / the wall of daughter Zion; / he stretched the line; / he did not withhold his hand from destroying; he caused rampart and wall to lament;; they languish together” (Lam. 2:8). “He stretched the line,” says Dobbs-Allsopp, means “ ‘he measured with a measuring-line’ (2 Kgs. 21:13; Isa. 34:11; Zech. 1:16; Job 38:5), as in a building project (Jer. 31:39; Zech. 1:16). Demolition also requires planning and measurement (see 2 Kings 24:13; Isa. 34:11)” (ibid., on v. 8). Grossberg says this “is the normal procedure for erecting a building, but here God is measuring how to destroy it” (cf. Amos 7:7-9)” (op. cit., on v. 8).

The following verse describes Jerusalem’s desolation.

9. Ufb4FA, tāv ^e‘û. “Her gates have sunk into the ground; / he has ruined and broken her bars; / her king and princes are among the nations; / guidance (hrAOT, tôrāh) is no more, / and her prophets obtain / no vision from the LORD” (v. 9). “Her gates have sunk into the ground,” says Dobbs-Allsopp, means “either the battered doors lying in the dirt, or the ruined gate-towers (Jer. 14:2)” (op. cit., on v. 9). He adds that “among the nations” means “in exile” (ibid.). Werner E. Lemke, revised by Kathleen O’Connor, says, “Guidance [hrAOT, tôrāh], or priestly ‘instruction’ [is meant]” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Lam. 2:9).

Daniel Grossberg says, “God is depicted throughout as an angry enemy who destroyed the physical structures of Jerusalem with violent force” (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, p. 1592 on Lam. 2:1-22). Werner E. Lemke agrees. “The Divine Warrior who used to fight Israel’s enemies (see Ex. 15:3-10; Judg. 5:10-11; Hab. 3:1-6) has now withdrawn his right hand or protective power and become like an enemy to Israel (cf. Jer. 30:14)” (HarperCollins Study Bible, 1993, on Lam. 2:3-5). “He has destroyed all its palaces,/laid in ruins its strongholds,/and multiplied in daughter Judah/mourning and lamentation” (v. 5b, c). “The LORD determined to lay in ruins/the wall of daughter Zion;/he stretched the line;/he did not withhold his hand from destroying” (Lam. 2:8). Jerusalem’s gates “have sunk into the ground,” “her king and princes are [scattered] among the nations,” so the nation is left without “guidance,” and even “her prophets” can obtain/no vision from the LORD” (v. 9). Grossberg notes that “the ch. has an interlocking design with 2:22, 21, 20, 13 and 12 echoing 2:1, 2, 3, 10 and 11 respectively.

The acrostic pattern, and with it the lamenting, will continue in tomorrow’s reading.

2 Corinthians 1:23-2:11

Painful Visit, Letter Written in Anguish

23 But I call on God as witness against me: it was to spare you that I did not come again to Corinth. 24 I do not mean to imply that we lord it over your faith; rather, we are workers with you for your joy, because you stand firm in the faith. 2:1 So I made up my mind not to make you another painful visit. 2 For if I cause you pain, who is there to make me glad but the one whom I have pained? 3 And I wrote as I did, so that when I came, I might not suffer pain from those who should have made me rejoice; for I am confident about all of you, that my joy would be the joy of all of you. 4 For I wrote you out of much distress and anguish of heart and with many tears, not to cause you pain, but to let you know the abundant love that I have for you. (2 Corinthians 1:23-2:4, NRSV)

Forgiveness for the Offender

5 But if anyone has caused pain, he has caused it not to me, but to some extent-not to exaggerate it-to all of you. 6 This punishment by the majority is enough for such a person; 7 so now instead you should forgive and console him, so that he may not be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. 8 So I urge you to reaffirm your love for him. 9 I wrote for this reason: to test you and to know whether you are obedient in everything. 10 Anyone whom you forgive, I also forgive. What I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the presence of Christ. 11 And we do this so that we may not be outwitted by Satan; for we are not ignorant of his designs. (2 Corinthians 2:5-11, NRSV)

The following comments are based on those of March 19, 2008 (Wednesday of Holy Week, Year Two), when comments were repeated from May 30, 2007 (Wednesday in the week of the Sunday closest to May 25, Year One), when comments were combined with revision and supplement from May 25, 2005, (Wednesday in the week of the Sunday closest to May 25, Year One), and from April 12, 2006 (Wednesday of Holy Week, Year Two) when comments were repeated from April 7, 2004 (Wednesday of Holy Week, Year Two).

On 2 Corinthians 1:23-2:4

After Paul’s first work in Corinth (18 months, Acts 18:11), and further travel, he apparently returned to Corinth for the “painful visit” (2 Cor. 2:1) during which some issues arose that, after leaving again, he sought to resolve by sending Titus to Corinth. He will later report his anxiety about Titus himself and the circumstances at Corinth (2:12-13), and eventually, his relief at catching up with Titus, finding him well, and hearing a good report from Titus about conditions at Corinth (7:5-16). But in the meantime, as noted yesterday, Paul has explained that he was not “vacillating” when he did not visit Corinth as expected (1:17-19). “But I call on God as witness against me: it was to spare you that I did not come again to Corinth” (2 Cor. 1:23). “I did not come again,” says Sze-kar Wan, “refers to the cancelled double visit of vv. 15-16). “For God as witness to Paul’s oaths,” says John T. Fitzgerald, “see Rom. 1:9; Phil. 1:8; 1 Thess. 2:5, 10)” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on 2 Cor. 1:23). There has clearly been a rift between Paul and the Church at Corinth–or some there, at least. A part of Paul’s joy when he eventually catches up with Titus is learning about the healing of the rift (7:7-13). But, as he continues here, his tone is conciliatory. “I do not mean to imply that we lord it over your faith; rather we are workers with you for your joy, because you stand firm in the faith” (1:24). “Thematically,” says Fitzgerald, “joy and pain (2:2) in 1:23-2:11) resume Paul’s earlier discussion of affliction and consolation (1:3-11)” (op. cit., on v. 24).

“So I made up my mind,” says Paul, “not to make you another painful visit. For if I cause you pain, who is there to make me glad but the one whom I have pained?” (2:1-2). “The painful visit,” says Fitzgerald, “was Paul’s second trip to Corinth; the next visit will be his third (see 12:14, 21; 13:1)” (ibid., on 2:1). Paul thus reveals another factor in the previously discussed change of plans. There had been a visit to Corinth with unhappy consequences, involving an offender whom Paul and the Corinthians as well now need to forgive (vv. 6-7, cf. below). Rather than visit Corinth at that time, Paul wrote a painful letter. “And I wrote as I did, so that when I came, I might not suffer pain from those who should have made me rejoice; for I am confident about all of you, that my joy would be the joy of all of you” (v. 3). Paul wrote, he says, “out of much distress and anguish of heart and with many tears, not to cause you pain, but to let you know the abundant love that I have for you” (v. 4). “This letter,” says Wan, “is probably lost. Some have argued that chs. 10-13 might be a part of this letter, but it seems unlikely. An older view that it might be 1 Cor., with the immoral act condemned in ch. 5, does not have many supporters today” (op. cit., on 2:3-4). Reading between the lines here and in chapter 7 (note the references to Titus in 2:13 and 7:6, separated by a long digression on the nature of Paul’s gospel and apostolic ministry), I sense that Titus has been helpful to Paul in overcoming some difficulties with the Corinthian believers. Apparently, even Paul need help from another in these circumstances. (Don’t we all, at times?)

On 2 Corinthians 2:5-11

There was one troublemaker, it seems, with whom Paul apparently had personal conflict. “But if anyone has caused pain,” says Paul, “he has caused it not to me, but to some extent–not to exaggerate it–to all of you” (v. 5). “A major goal of Paul,” says Fitzgerald, “is the reconciliation of the person who mistreated him during his second visit” (op. cit., on 2:5-11). He adds, “Both the identity of this individual and the details of his actions are unknown. Earlier critics normally identified him with the ‘incestuous’ man of 1 Cor. 5, whereas most modern interpreters see him as either another member of the Corinthian church or someone from outside of Corinth” (ibid., on v. 5). “This punishment ( ejpitimiva, epitimia) by the majority is enough for such a person,” says Paul (v. 6), “so now instead you should forgive and console him, so that he may not be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow” (v. 7). Of “punishment,” Fitzgerald says, “or ‘strong moral rebuke’ ” (ibid., on v. 6). Frederick William Danker simply defines ejpitimiva (epitimia) as “punishment ” (The Concise Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 2009, s.v. ejpitimiva, epitimia). However, his definition of the related verb would support Fitzgerald’s observation, “ ‘express urgently to elicit compliance,’ strictly charge . . . warn . . . reprimand . . . reprove, rebuke” (ibid., s.v. ejpitimavw, epitimaō ). Some at Corinth have proven their loyalty to Paul by dealing with the situation of this troublemaker, but now, says Paul, “I urge you to reaffirm your love for him” (v. 8). “I wrote for this reason,” he says, “to test you and to know whether you are obedient in everything” (v. 9). According to Fitzgerald, “To be obedient (see also 10:6) entails recognition of Paul’s apostolic authority (10:8; 13:10). His later praise of the Corinthians’ obedience (7:15) indicates that they passed this test ” (op. cit., on v. 9).

With reference to the troublemaker “who caused pain” (v. 5), Paul says, “Anyone whom you forgive, I also forgive. What I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the presence of Christ” (v. 10). “And we do this,” he adds, “so that we may not be outwitted by Satan; for we are not ignorant of his designs” (v. 11). “Satan,” as Wan reminds us, is “Heb. ‘accuser’; see also 11:14; 12:7. Elsewhere in 2 Cor. this evil figure is called ‘the god of this world’ (4:4), ‘Beliar’ (6:15), and ‘serpent’ (11:3)” (op. cit., on v. 11). Fitzgerald says, “Satan is frequently mentioned not only in Paul’s Letters to Corinth (1 Cor. 5:5; 7:5; 2 Cor. 6:15; 11:14; 12:7), but also in those written from that city (Rom. 16:20; 1 Thess. 2:18; 2 Thess. 2:9). According to Wan, “The ‘letter of tears’ was evidently well received. Paul pleads that the offender be forgiven now that the whole congregation has meted out appropriate punishment” (op. cit., on 2 Cor. 2:5-11). The thankfulness for the Corinthians that Paul expressed in chapter 1 (1:7, 11), and reference to this situation of reconciliation in regard to the treatment of the troublemaker, help Paul win the confidence of the Corinthians as he gradually builds toward defending himself vigorously against the attacks of the opponents, the “super apostles” (11:5; 12:11).

Mark 12:1-11

The Parable of the Wicked Tenants (Mt 21.33-46; Lk 20.9-19)

12:1 Then he began to speak to them in parables. "A man planted a vineyard, put a fence around it, dug a pit for the wine press, and built a watchtower; then he leased it to tenants and went to another country. 2 When the season came, he sent a slave to the tenants to collect from them his share of the produce of the vineyard. 3 But they seized him, and beat him, and sent him away empty-handed. 4 And again he sent another slave to them; this one they beat over the head and insulted. 5 Then he sent another, and that one they killed. And so it was with many others; some they beat, and others they killed. 6 He had still one other, a beloved son. Finally he sent him to them, saying, 'They will respect my son.' 7 But those tenants said to one another, 'This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.' 8 So they seized him, killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard. 9 What then will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the tenants and give the vineyard to others. 10 Have you not read this scripture:

'The stone that the builders rejected

has become the cornerstone;

11 this was the Lord's doing,

and it is amazing in our eyes'?" (Mark 12:1-11, NRSV)

The following comments are based on relevant comments from those on Mark 11:27-12:12 of August 18, 2009 (Tuesday in the week of the Sunday closest to August 17, Year One), and earlier comments as indicated there. Parallel passages for this reading are presented in the separate file, the Parable of the Wicked Tenants. Recent comments on Matthew’s version of these events may be found in the Archive for December 3, 2009 (Thursday in the week of the First Sunday of Advent, Year Two); recent comments on Luke’s version may be found in the Archive for June 15, 2009 ( Monday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 15, Year One).

Mark’s Parable of the Vineyard (Mk. 12:1-11) is a sharp indictment of certain religious leaders, who immediately recognized that. “When they realized that he had told this parable against them, they wanted to arrest him, but they feared the crowd” (Mk. 12:12). We should be careful not to include all Jews then or now in Jesus’ indictment of a few then. There are variations in the details of the three accounts of Jesus’ Parable of the Vineyard, but the point is clear, and not lost on the audience, “the chief priests and the Pharisees” (Mt. 21:45), “they” (Mk. 12:12 = “the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders,” 11:27), “the scribes and the chief priests” (Lk. 20:19, cf. “elders,” v. 1).

As Mark’s account of the parable begins, he seems to promise a series of parables: “Then he [i.e., Jesus] began to speak to them in parables” (Mk. 12:1; cf. 4:2); cf. Luke’s “He began to tell the people this parable” (Lk. 20:9a). However, the closest thing to a parable that follows in Mark would be the Lesson of the Fig Tree (Mk. 13:28-29; cf. Mt. 24:32-33; Lk. 21:29-31). But Matthew, who follows the discussion of the Question about Authority (Mt. 21:23-27; Mk. 11:27-33; Lk. 20:1-8) with the Parable of the Two Sons (Mt. 21:28-32; cf. Lk. 7:29-30), and will follow with the Parable of the Great Supper (Mt. 22:1-14; cf. Lk. 14:15-24), introduces the Parable of the Wicked Tenants as “another parable” (Mt. 21:33).

In this context Mark reports that Jesus says, “A man [‘landowner,’ Mt.] planted a vineyard . . . then he leased it to tenants and went to another country” (Mk. 12:1b d; cf Mt. 21:33b, d; Lk. 20:9b, c). At the point of the ellipsis here, Mark’s version cites Isaiah’s Song of the Vineyard, saying that the man “put a fence around it [i.e., the vineyard], dug a pit for the wine press, and built a watchtower” (Mk. 12:1c, citing Isa. 5:1-2; cf. Mt. 21:33c). “Then,” we are told, the man “leased it [i.e., the vineyard] to tenants and went to another country” (Mk. 12:1d; Mt. 21:33d; cf. Lk. 20:9c, which adds “for a long time”). The owner of the vineyard sends “his slaves” (Mt. 21:34), “a slave” (Mk. 12:2; Lk. 20:10) to get the fruit at harvest time. The tenants’ mistreatment of these emissaries is described in different ways. They “seized his slaves and beat one, killed another, and stoned another” (Mt. 21:35). At this point, Mark and Luke speak of one slave who is seized, beaten and sent away empty-handed (Mk. 12:3; Lk. 20:10). Luke mentions two more who come for the fruit (Lk. 20:11, 12), but Mark mentions “another” (Mk. 12:4) and “another” (v. 5) and “many others” (v. 5). This abuse, mistreatment and killing represents a history of Israel’s treatment of prophets, and leads to the sending of the owner’s son. “He [i.e. the vineyard’s owner] had still one other, a beloved son. Finally he sent him to them, saying, ‘They will respect my son’ ” (Mk. 12:6; cf. Mt. 21:37; Lk. 20:13). But the son meets the fate of the earlier emissaries. “But those tenants said to one another, ‘This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours’ ” (Mk. 12:7; cf. Mt. 21:38; Lk. 20:14). And they carried out their scheme. “So they seized him, killed him, and threw him out of the vineyard” (Mk. 12:8; cf. Mt. 21:39; Lk. 20:15a). The tenants’ killing of the owner’s son is an unmistakable reference to the crucifixion of Jesus, and it is no wonder that the point was not lost on these Jewish leaders. The owner of the vineyard reacts as one might expect to the mistreatment of his servants and the killing of his son. “What then will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the tenants and give the vineyard to others” (Mk. 12:9; cf. Mt. 21:41; Lk. 20:15b, 16:a). This aspect of the parable apparently anticipates the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in A.D. 70. For the Christian, there is hope in the application of the “rejected stone” text from Psalm 118:22-23. “Have you not read this scripture:

‘The stone that the builders rejected

has become the cornerstone;

this was the Lord’s doing,

and it is amazing in our eyes’?” (Mk. 12:10-11; cf Mt. 21:42; Lk. 20:17)

Richard A. Horsley says that the stone allegorically becomes “the cornerstone (citing Ps. 118:22-23) of the new political-religious order that will replace the Temple establishment” (op. cit., on Mk. 12:1-12).

In Matthew, Jesus interprets the cornerstone quotation. “Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people that produces the fruits of the kingdom. The one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and it will crush anyone on whom it falls” (Mt. 21:43-44; to v. 44, cf. Lk. 20:18). As noted above, the killing of the son by the tenants represents the crucifixion of Jesus. Caiaphas and his immediate supporters owed their positions to the Romans, and their complicity with the Romans in the crucifixion is represented by the actions of the tenants. As indicated by the Isaiah citation noted above, the representation of Israel by a vineyard (Mt. 21:33; Mk. 12:1; Lk. 20:9) invokes the imagery of Isaiah’s Song of the Unfruitful Vineyard (Isa. 5:1-7). Matthew and Mark refer to God’s provisions for protection and production, the “fence,” “wine press” and “watchtower” (Mt. 21:33; Mk. 12:1; cf. “watchtower,” “wine vat,” Isa. 5:2, “hedge” and “wall,” Isa. 5:5). Isaiah foresees a restored “pleasant vineyard” (Isa. 27:2-6) that will “blossom and put forth shoots,/and fill the whole world with fruit” (v. 6).

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net