Genesis 42:29-38

29 When they came to their father Jacob in the land of Canaan, they told him all that had happened to them, saying, 30 "The man, the lord of the land, spoke harshly to us, and charged us with spying on the land. 31 But we said to him, 'We are honest men, we are not spies. 32 We are twelve brothers, sons of our father; one is no more, and the youngest is now with our father in the land of Canaan.' 33 Then the man, the lord of the land, said to us, 'By this I shall know that you are honest men: leave one of your brothers with me, take grain for the famine of your households, and go your way. 34 Bring your youngest brother to me, and I shall know that you are not spies but honest men. Then I will release your brother to you, and you may trade in the land.' "

35 As they were emptying their sacks, there in each one's sack was his bag of money. When they and their father saw their bundles of money, they were dismayed. 36 And their father Jacob said to them, "I am the one you have bereaved of children: Joseph is no more, and Simeon is no more, and now you would take Benjamin. All this has happened to me!" 37 Then Reuben said to his father, "You may kill my two sons if I do not bring him back to you. Put him in my hands, and I will bring him back to you." 38 But he said, "My son shall not go down with you, for his brother is dead, and he alone is left. If harm should come to him on the journey that you are to make, you would bring down my gray hairs with sorrow to Sheol." (Genesis 42:29-38, NRSV)

The following comments are based on those of February 21, 2008 (Thursday in the week of the Second Sunday of Lent, Year Two), when comments were repeated with editing and supplement from March 16, 2006 (Thursday in the week of the Second Sunday of Lent, Year Two):

At the close of yesterday’s reading we left Joseph’s brothers, except for Simeon and Benjamin, on the road from Egypt to Canaan, bearing the news Joseph (whom they have not recognized) requires them to bring Benjamin back to Egypt if Simeon is to be released from prison (Gen. 42:19-20, 24). To add to their dismay, they have discovered money intended to pay for grain still in one brother’s sack (vv. 27-28).

As today’s reading begins, the brothers return to their father. “When they came to their father Jacob in the land of Canaan, they told him all that had happened to them, saying, ‘The man (wyx9hA, hā’îš), the lord of the land (Cr,xAhA yn2dox3, ’ ^adōnê hā’ārets), spoke harshly to us, and charged us with spying on the land’ ” (Gen. 42:29-30). For the words “the lord of,” Rabbi J. H. Hertz points out that “the Heb. is in the plural, often used to express power or greatness” (Pentateuch & Haftorahs, 2^nd ed., 24^th printing, 1981, on Gen. 42:30). We, of course, know that “the lord of the land” is Joseph. And the brothers’ account continues. “But we said to him, ‘We are honest men, we are not spies. We are twelve brothers, sons of our father; one is no more, and the youngest is now with our father in the land of Canaan’ ” (vv. 31-32). Joel W. Rosenberg says, “Again (see v. 13) they restate the situation of Ch. 37, but now Joseph is mentioned before Benjamin, for he is fresher in their minds” (HarperCollins Study Bible, 1^st ed., 1993, on Gen. 42:32). “Then,” say the brothers, “the man (wyx9hA, hā’îš), the lord of the land (Cr,xAhA yn2dox3, ’ ^adōnê hā’ārets), said to us, ‘By this I shall know that you are honest men: leave one of your brothers with me, take grain for the famine (NObf3r1&, ra‘ ^avôn) of your households, and go your way” (v. 33). Note repetition of the Hebrew plural “lords” translated “lord” (as indicated by Rabbi Hertz, above). The reference is clearly to Joseph. On the words “corn for the famine” (JPS 1917, for “grain for the famine” NRSV), the Rabbi says, “The words ‘corn for’ are supplied from the context” (op. cit., on v. 33). They report Joseph’s demand to bring Benjamin to Egypt as a condition for the release of Simeon. “Bring your youngest brother to me, and I shall know that you are not spies but honest men. Then I will release your brother to you, and you may trade in the land” (v. 34). Jon D. Levenson says, “I will then restore [NJPS 1985, 1999, for ‘release’ NRSV] your brother to you (not reported in vv. 18-20) refers most immediately to Simeon, but unbeknownst to the brothers (and perhaps even to Joseph himself at this point), the release of Benjamin will result in the restoration of Joseph as well” (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, on Gen. 42:34).

Even at home the brothers discover more disheartening news, for “as they were emptying their sacks, there in each one's sack was his bag of money. When they and their father saw their bundles of money, they were dismayed” (v. 35). According to Rabbi Hertz, the brothers “looked upon it as a deliberate act on the part of the Egyptian lord to bring a charge of theft against them” (op. cit., on Gen. 42:35). Jacob is unwilling to comply with the demand brought from Joseph. “I am the one you have bereaved of children: Joseph is no more, and Simeon is no more, and now you would take Benjamin. All this has happened to me!” (v. 36). “The point of the reproach,” says Rabbi Hertz, “is that it is his children, not their own, that they are endangering: to which Reuben’s offer [v. 37] is the rejoinder” (ibid., on v. 36). “Then Reuben said to his father, ‘You may kill my two sons if I do not bring him back to you. Put him in my hands, and I will bring him back to you’ ” (v. 37). The Rabbi says, “The impetuous nature of Reuben is seen here. ‘Two sons,’ one for Benjamin and one for Joseph–of whose death he feels that he shares the guilt with his brothers” (ibid., on v. 37). “Jacob’s response,” says Ronald Hendel, “is to emphasize their guilt, assume the worst, and indulge in self-pity. Joseph is no more puts a name to the brother’s reticent description one is no more (vv. 13, 32). Jacob prematurely includes Simeon in the same category (v. 34) and refuses to let them take Benjamin” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Gen. 42:36-37). “Jacob is here a tragic and pathetic figure,” says Hendel. And he finds Reuben’s offer characteristic in what some call the “E source”: “Reuben’s response, to pledge his own son as a guarantee for his protection of Benjamin, is heroic and confirms his righteous role in the E version (see 37:22; 42:22)” (ibid.).

But for the time being Jacob is adamant. “My son shall not go down with you, for his brother is dead, and he alone is left. If harm should come to him on the journey that you are to make, you would bring down my gray hairs with sorrow to Sheol” (v. 38). According to Levenson,

Reuben once again proves ineffectual (cf. 37:18-30; 42:22). A midrash paraphrases Jacob’s decline of Reuben’s offer this way: ‘This is a foolish first-born son! Are your sons not my sons?’ (Gen. Rab. 91:9). The theme of the loss of two sons–Jacob’s and Reuben’s–recalls ch. 38, in which Judah loses two sons and withholds the third. Reuben’s foolish offer thus sets the stage for Judah’s successful interventions in 43:8-14 and 44:18-34. (op. cit., on Gen. 42:36-38).

1 Corinthians 6:12-20

Glorify God in Body and Spirit

12 "All things are lawful for me," but not all things are beneficial. "All things are lawful for me," but I will not be dominated by anything. 13 "Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food," and God will destroy both one and the other. The body is meant not for fornication but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14 And God raised the Lord and will also raise us by his power. 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Should I therefore take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! 16 Do you not know that whoever is united to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For it is said, "The two shall be one flesh." 17 But anyone united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. 18 Shun fornication! Every sin that a person commits is outside the body; but the fornicator sins against the body itself. 19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God, and that you are not your own? 20 For you were bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body. (1 Corinthians 6:12-20, NRSV)

The following comments are based on those of September 24, 2009 (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to September 21, Year One), when comments were repeated with editing and supplement from March 15, 2009 (the Third Sunday of Lent, Year One), when comments were repeated from February 21, 2008 (Thursday in the week of the Second Sunday of Lent, Year Two), when comments were repeated from September 27, 2007 (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to September 21, Year One), when comments were combined from February 27, 2005 (the Third Sunday of Lent, Year One), and from comments on 1 Cor 6:12-30 from March 16, 2006 (Thursday in the week of the Second Sunday of Lent, Year Two), which were repeated then from the Thursday portion of an email sent March 7, 2004 for the week of the Second Sunday in Lent).

After rebuking the Corinthians for neglecting discipline in the case of sexual immorality (1 Cor. 5:1-13), and for lawsuits taken to the secular courts of law rather than handling them within the community as matters of church discipline (6:1-9, cf. vv. 10-11), Paul addresses the matter of other sins, mainly, but not exclusively, sexual sins. “Do you not know,” he asks, “that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God?” (v. 9a). He continues with a list: “Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers–none of these will inherit the kingdom of God” (vv. 9b, 10; cf. yesterday’s comments, March 3, 2010). The Corinthians, he believes, have been rescued from lives of such sins. “And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God” (v. 11).

As Paul continues in today’s reading, he faces the arguments some from Corinth have put forward to justify sinful ways. He quotes their slogans, in order to refute them. “ ‘All things are lawful for me,’ but not all things are beneficial. ‘All things are lawful for me,’ but I will not be dominated by anything” (1 Cor. 6:12). “ ‘Food is mean for the stomach, and the stomach for food’,” adds Paul, “and God will destroy both one and the other” (v. 13a). These verses are examples of how modern translations such as the New Revised Standard Version set off parts of verses with quotation marks (cf. RSV, TNIV). The quotation marks around “all things are lawful for me” and “food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food” are understood to indicate slogans of some in the Corinthian church, perhaps included in the letter they sent to Paul (cf. 1 Cor. 7:1). As he implies, some have used the first slogan, “All things are lawful for me,” to justify their actions. He counters, by saying, “not all things are beneficial. . . . I will not be dominated by anything” (v. 12). The second quotation was apparently used to justify the sinful uses of the body, but Paul counters, “and God will destroy both one and the other” (v. 13b). It becomes clear that Paul is not just talking about eating or abstaining from certain foods, but rather about sexual sins. Their point was that sexual immorality was not a serious matter, but Paul’s point is “The body is meant not for fornication but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body” (v. 13c). He connects this understanding of the sanctity of the body with the Christian hope of being resurrected with Christ (cf. chap. 15, and Rom. 8:11). “And God raised the Lord and will also raise us by his power” (1 Cor. 6:14).

What people do with their bodies, says Paul, affects their spiritual life. In particular, the sins listed here have no place in the life of a Christian believer. “ Do you not know,” asks Paul, “that your bodies are members of Christ? Should I therefore take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute?” And he answers, “Never!” (v. 15). That “Never!” (NRSV) represents a frequently used strong denial of an idea to which Paul takes exception, mh; gevnoito (mē genoito), literally “May it not be so!” (“God forbid,” AV/KJV, cf. Lk. 20:16; Rom. 3:4, 6, 31; Gal. 2:17). Paul uses biblical language about marriage in describing a form of breaking the marriage vows. “Do you not know that whoever is united to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For it is said, ‘The two shall be one flesh’ ” (1 Cor. 6:16, citing Gen. 2:24). He compares and contrasts this extramarital union with our union with Christ. “But anyone united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him” (v. 17). And so he comes to the point to which he has been building. “Shun fornication!” (v. 18a). This, says Richard A. Horsley, “is what Paul’s argument has been leading to” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on 1 Cor. 6:18). Paul clarifies with emphasis on the evil of this sin. “Every sin that a person commits is outside the body; but the fornicator sins against the body itself” (v. 18b).

As Paul continues he applies the metaphor of the temple, used of the church as the Christian community in chapter 3, to the individual Christian’s body. “Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you were bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body” (vv. 19-20). Clearly, the reference to food (v. 13, above) is a metaphor for fornication as a sin of desire. Paul does not apply this principle to the “deadly sin” of gluttony in this passage, which some might expect, but the saying about food “meant for the stomach” suggests such an application. Don W. King has found references to the seven deadly sins in the works of C. S. Lewis, for example:

In The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, the character, Edmund Pevensie, personifies gluttony, the sin of excessively using things in themselves legitimate, normally associated with the appetite, and, in effect, making one's belly the god he serves (Phil. 3:19). Jadis, the White Witch, exploits Edmund's weakness when she meets him in a snowy woods, offering him a warm drink and Turkish Delight, his favorite candy. From the first bite, he is hooked, for each "piece was sweet and light to the very centre and Edmund had never tasted anything more delicious." As she pumps him for information regarding his brother and sisters, he readily replies, driven by an insatiable hunger for more and more Turkish Delight: "At first Edmund tried to remember that it is rude to speak with one's mouth full, but soon he forgot about this and thought only of trying to shovel down as much Turkish Delight as he could, and the more he ate, the more he wanted to eat, and he never asked himself why the Queen should be so inquisitive" ( 32; all references to the Narnia stories are from the Collier edition, 1970). (From a paper entitled “Narnia and the Seven Deadly Sins” on a web site entitled “Into the Wardrobe: A C. S. Lewis web site” http://cslewis.drzeus.net/papers/7sins.html, accessed again March 3, 2010; you might need to copy and paste the URL in your browser).

And King finds another sin, the sin emphasized in today’s reading, in another of C. S. Lewis’s tales.

In the second Narnian tale, Prince Caspian, Lewis emphasizes luxury. Some explanation is necessary here regarding the meaning of luxuria. Many early lists of the seven deadly sins substitute for luxuria, fornicatio, sodomita, or libido, all suggesting sexual immorality or unchecked physical passion. I believe, however, that Lewis chose to use luxuria in the sense of lust for things in general. I base my reasoning on his analysis of a medieval poem by Prudentius, "Psychomachia," recorded in The Allegory of Love. There Lewis comments: ‘It should be noticed that Prudentius' seven champions do not exactly correspond with the familiar list of the seven deadly sins in later writers. Luxuria, . . . is, in fact, something very like "luxury" in the modern meaning of the word–the sin of the profiteer’ (70). That Lewis would choose to use luxuria in this sense is not surprising, considering that the bulk of his audience, young children, would be more likely to understand it as opposed to sexual immorality. (ibid.)

Mark 4:21-34

A Lamp under a Bushel Basket (Lk 8.16-18)

21 He said to them, "Is a lamp brought in to be put under the bushel basket, or under the bed, and not on the lampstand? 22 For there is nothing hidden, except to be disclosed; nor is anything secret, except to come to light. 23 Let anyone with ears to hear listen!" 24 And he said to them, "Pay attention to what you hear; the measure you give will be the measure you get, and still more will be given you. 25 For to those who have, more will be given; and from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away."

The Parable of the Growing Seed

26 He also said, "The kingdom of God is as if someone would scatter seed on the ground, 27 and would sleep and rise night and day, and the seed would sprout and grow, he does not know how. 28 The earth produces of itself, first the stalk, then the head, then the full grain in the head. 29 But when the grain is ripe, at once he goes in with his sickle, because the harvest has come."

The Parable of the Mustard Seed (Mt 13.31-32; Lk 13.18-19)

30 He also said, "With what can we compare the kingdom of God, or what parable will we use for it? 31 It is like a mustard seed, which, when sown upon the ground, is the smallest of all the seeds on earth; 32 yet when it is sown it grows up and becomes the greatest of all shrubs, and puts forth large branches, so that the birds of the air can make nests in its shade."

The Use of Parables

33 With many such parables he spoke the word to them, as they were able to hear it; 34 he did not speak to them except in parables, but he explained everything in private to his disciples. (Mark 4:21-34, NRSV)

The following comments are repeated here from July 21, 2009 (Tuesday in the week of the Sunday closest to July 20, Year One), when they were repeated from January 22, 2009 (Thursday in the week of the Second Sunday after the Epiphany, Year One), when comments were repeated from February 21, 2008 (Thursday in the week of the Second Sunday of Lent, Year Two), when comments were repeated from July 24, 2007 (Tuesday in the week of the Sunday closest to July 20, Year One), when comments were repeated from January 18, 2007 (Thursday in the week of the Second Sunday after the Epiphany, Year One), when they were repeated from January 20, 2005 (Thursday of the week of the Second Sunday after the Epiphany, Year One), when comments had been repeated on March 16, 2006 (Thursday in the week of the Second Sunday of Lent, Year Two); the latter were combined with revision and adaptation with comments from July 19, 2005 (Tuesday in the week of the Sunday closest to July 20, Year One).

After Jesus interprets the Parable of the Sower, each of the Synoptic Gospels continues with additional parables, Luke with only one, but Matthew with eight as compared to Mark’s three. The references for today’s reading from Mark are in bold print in the following table.

As Jesus continues with brief parables or sayings, the “lamp” (Mk. 4:21-22), “the measure you get” (vv. 24-25), the seed that grows secretly (vv. 26-29), the mustard seed (vv. 30-32), he follows the principle of using parables in public, but giving his disciples private explanations (vv. 33-34). This accords with the purpose of parables presented earlier (vv. 10-12) in connection with the quotation from Isaiah 6:9-10. The reference to the lamp reminds us of another of Jesus’ admonitions, “Let your light shine before others” (Mt. 5:16), and the reference to “the measure you give” (Mk. 4:24) reminds us of Luke 6:38, “Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap, for the measure you give will be the measure you get back.” In Matthew, a similar saying about “the measure you give” applies to judging (Mt. 7:1-2). The seed parables (seed growing secretly, mustard seed) emphasize the surprising, even amazing, results, suggesting the potential to be realized in the kingdom of God.

C. M. Tuckett has called Mark 4:21-25 “a series of what originally were almost certainly isolated sayings in the tradition” (The Oxford Bible Commentary, 2001, on Mk. 4:21-25). A fairly literal translation of verse 21 would be, “A lamp doesn’t come ( e[rcetai, erchetai) [‘Is a lamp brought’ NRSV] to be put under a bushel basket . . .” Tuckett notes “the unusual personification of the lamp, and the significant way in which, for Mark, Jesus has ‘come’ (cf. 1:38) [which] suggests that Mark sees Jesus himself as the lamp.” Tuckett adds:

The aim of Jesus’ coming is not in the end permanent secrecy or hiddenness. Rather, any secrecy will in the end result in openness. Exactly when this will happen is not specified precisely here; but the purpose of the sayings seems to stress the inevitable end of any secrecy surrounding Jesus and his person. Vv. 24-5 strike a rather different note, with warnings as well as encouragement. Human response is also required in full measure. . . . The section as a whole thus combines assurance and exhortation with warning. (ibid.)

The two seed parables which follow provide encouragement. When someone sows the seed, he doesn’t know how, but the seed grows, “first the stalk, then the head, then the full grain in the head” (v. 28), yielding a ripened harvest (v. 29). The mustard seed, “the smallest of all the seeds on earth” (v. 31) becomes “the greatest of all shrubs” (v. 32). Richard A. Horsley says, “Note the modest metaphor, in contrast with the imperial metaphor of the cedar tree in Ezek. 17; 31; Dan. 4” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on vv. 30-32). Mark concludes the series of parables by explaining that Jesus used such parables with the crowds “as they were able to hear it” (v. 33), but “he explained everything in private to his disciples” (v. 34). Even so, they seem not to understand fully on subsequent occasions (4:40; 6:52; 8:14-21, etc.).

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net