Genesis 44:1-17

44:1 Then he commanded the steward of his house, "Fill the men's sacks with food, as much as they can carry, and put each man's money in the top of his sack. 2 Put my cup, the silver cup, in the top of the sack of the youngest, with his money for the grain." And he did as Joseph told him. 3 As soon as the morning was light, the men were sent away with their donkeys. 4 When they had gone only a short distance from the city, Joseph said to his steward, "Go, follow after the men; and when you overtake them, say to them, 'Why have you returned evil for good? Why have you stolen my silver cup? 5 Is it not from this that my lord drinks? Does he not indeed use it for divination? You have done wrong in doing this.' "

6 When he overtook them, he repeated these words to them. 7 They said to him, "Why does my lord speak such words as these? Far be it from your servants that they should do such a thing! 8 Look, the money that we found at the top of our sacks, we brought back to you from the land of Canaan; why then would we steal silver or gold from your lord's house? 9 Should it be found with any one of your servants, let him die; moreover the rest of us will become my lord's slaves." 10 He said, "Even so; in accordance with your words, let it be: he with whom it is found shall become my slave, but the rest of you shall go free." 11 Then each one quickly lowered his sack to the ground, and each opened his sack. 12 He searched, beginning with the eldest and ending with the youngest; and the cup was found in Benjamin's sack. 13 At this they tore their clothes. Then each one loaded his donkey, and they returned to the city.

14 Judah and his brothers came to Joseph's house while he was still there; and they fell to the ground before him. 15 Joseph said to them, "What deed is this that you have done? Do you not know that one such as I can practice divination?" 16 And Judah said, "What can we say to my lord? What can we speak? How can we clear ourselves? God has found out the guilt of your servants; here we are then, my lord's slaves, both we and also the one in whose possession the cup has been found." 17 But he said, "Far be it from me that I should do so! Only the one in whose possession the cup was found shall be my slave; but as for you, go up in peace to your father." (Genesis 44:1-17, NRSV)

The following comments are based on those of February 24, 2008 (the Third Sunday of Lent, Year Two), when comments were repeated from March 19, 2006 (the Third Sunday of Lent, Year Two):

As his brothers prepare to leave and return to their father in Canaan, Joseph orders one more test. “This passage,” says Jon D. Levenson,

recalls Joseph’s clandestine return of his brothers’ money to their sacks (42:25-38), except this time Joseph specifically targets Jacob’s favored son (and Joseph’s stand-in), Benjamin (absent in the prior episode). this seems to be a test: Will the older ten brothers jettison Benjamin when his presence becomes inconvenient, as they once did Joseph, or have they finally learned the painful lesson about family solidarity and filial obedience? (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, on Gen. 44:1-17).

Joseph orders the steward: “Fill the men's sacks with food, as much as they can carry, and put each man's money (Js,K,%, keseph) in the top of his sack” (Gen. 44:1; cf. 42:25). Rabbi J. H. Hertz explains “as much as they can carry” as “more than they were entitled to by their purchase. This act of kindness on Joseph’s part was intentional, so as to increase the apparent baseness of their conduct; see v. 4” (Pentateuch & Haftorahs, 2^nd ed., 24^th printing, 1981, on Gen. 44:1). But this test, while repeating the return of the money, adds a new twist. Joseph instructs the steward, “ ‘Put my cup, the silver cup (Js,K,ha f1yb9G4 yf9yb96G4-tx,v4, w ^e’eth-g ^evî‘î g ^evî ^a‘ hakkeseph), in the top of the sack of the youngest, with his money for the grain.’ And he did as Joseph told him” (v. 2). Returning the money to each brother, says the Rabbi, “was done to prevent the brethren from suspecting Benjamin of having really stolen the goblet. When they again found their money returned, they could not but believe that the goblet had in the selfsame unaccountable manner come into Benjamin’s sack (Abarbanel)” (ibid.). The Rabbi explains “the silver goblet ” (JPS 1917, for ‘the silver cup’ NRSV): “Divining goblets were much used in Egypt. Pieces of gold or silver were thrown into the water or liquid in the goblet and caused movements, which were supposed to represent coming events” (ibid., on v. 2). “This bait,” says Ronald Hendel, “along with the money (lit. ‘silver’) placed in their sacks, recalls the twenty pieces of silver for which the brothers sold Joseph (37:28). Will they abandon Benjamin for the sake of this silver?” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Gen. 44:2).

“As soon as the morning was light,” says the narrator, “the men were sent away with their donkeys” (v. 3). The loads for the donkeys including the sacks with returned money had been prepared by Joseph’s servants for this early departure. But “when they had gone only a short distance from the city, Joseph said to his steward, ‘Go, follow after the men; and when you overtake them, say to them, ‘Why have you stolen my silver cup? Is it not from this that my lord drinks? Does he not indeed use it for divination? You have done wrong in doing this’ ” (vv. 4-5). Commenting on “It is the very one from which my master drinks” (NJPS 1985, 1999, for “Is it not from this that my lord drinks?” NRSV), Levenson says, “An ancient Jewish translation (the Septuagint) gives evidence that a second question, ‘Why have you stolen my silver goblet?’ once followed the one at the end of v. 4. In contrast to other passages in the Torah (Lev 19:26; Num. 23:23; Deut. 18:10-11), divination (fortune-telling) is not here condemned (cf. 30:27)” (op. cit., on v. 5). David M. Carr also notes the connection with divination. “Here the focus is on Joseph’s cup,” he says, “a sacred vessel for divination, that is, magical prediction of the future (cf. 42:25-29)” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Gen. 44:1-5).

Again, the steward does as instructed. When the steward overtakes the brothers he repeats Joseph’s words (v. 6), but they deny the charge emphatically. “Why does my lord speak such words as these? Far be it from your servants that they should do such a thing!” (v. 7). They cite their earlier return in a similar situation. “Look, the money that we found at the top of our sacks, we brought back to you from the land of Canaan; why then would we steal silver or gold from your lord's house?” (v. 8). “Their argument is sound,” says Rabbi Hertz. “They had brought back from Canaan the money which they had found in their sacks. Would they then think of robbing the Egyptian lord, who had treated them with so much consideration?” (op. cit., on v. 8). And the brothers say the punishments will be accepted if the theft is discovered. “Should it be found with any one of your servants, let him die; moreover the rest of us will become my lord's slaves” (v. 9). With reference to “let him die,” the Rabbi says, “Convinced of their absolute innocence, they propose the penalty of death as the punishment to be inflicted on the thief. They add to this, slavery for all the other brothers” (ibid., on v. 9). Carr says that “the brothers’ (unknowing) taking of the cup and pronouncement of a death penalty on the thief (v. 9) echo the earlier story of Rachel’s stealing of Laban’s household gods (31:19) and Jacob’s pronouncement of the death penalty on the thief (31:32)” (ibid.., on vv. 1-5). “Not coincidentally,” says Levenson, “death and slavery were the two punishments that the brothers plotted to inflict on Joseph in 37:18-28” (op. cit., on vv. 7-9). So the steward agrees, but limits the proposed punishment. “Even so,” says the Steward; “in accordance with your words, let it be: he with whom it is found shall become my slave, but the rest of you shall go free” (v. 10). According to the Rabbi, “The steward asks only for the guilty one to be his bondman. According to Rashi the verse means: ‘Verily it should be as ye have said (for ye are all accessories, and therefore, all guilty; but I will be more lenient) he alone with whom it is found shall be my bondman” (op. cit., on v. 10).

Still confident in their innocence, “each one [of the brothers] quickly lowered his sack to the ground, and each opened his sack” (v. 11). Referring to “then they hastened” (JPS, for “then each one quickly” NRSV), Rabbi Hertz says, “This agitated zeal wonderfully depicts their confident innocence (Procksch)” (ibid., on v. 11). And so the steward “searched, beginning with the eldest and ending with the youngest” (v. 12a). On “beginning at the eldest” (JPS for “beginning with the eldest” NRSV), the Rabbi says, “To prevent suspicion of his [i.e., the steward’s] knowledge of the affair. It is also a dramatic touch adding to the excitement of the scene described” (ibid., on v. 12). Hendel says, “The steward’s search, eldest to youngest, creates suspense and echoes the happier situation of the previous day’s feast, when they were arranged from the firstborn to the youngest (43:33)” (op. cit., on vv. 12-13). But the search leads to what, for the brothers, was the worst case result, as “the cup was found in Benjamin’s sack” (v. 12b). “At this,” says the narrator, “they tore their clothes. Then each one loaded his donkey, and they returned to the city” (v. 13). With reference to “then they rent their clothes” (JPS, for “At this they tore their clothes” NRSV), the Rabbi says it was “in their grief at the thought of the loss of Benjamin, mourning him as if he were dead” (ibid., on v. 13). “Their response to the discovery of the cup and the imminent loss of Benjamin,” says Hendel, “directly echoes Jacob’s response to the loss of Joseph (37:34), a gesture of mourning. Their grief is poetic justice for the grief they caused their father” (loc. cit.).

So “Judah and his brothers came to Joseph's house while he was still there; and they fell to the ground before him” (v. 14). Of “Judah,” the Rabbi explains, “who assumes the leadership, having undertaken the responsibility of bringing Benjamin home again” (op. cit., on v. 14). Although he knows the truth of the situation, Joseph expresses astonishment. He “said to them, ‘What deed is this that you have done? Do you not know that one such as I can practice divination (wHen1y4 wHen1, nachēš y ^enachēš ) [which, in this case, at least, he certainly did not need]?” (v. 15). The reference to divination, says Hendel, is “ironic, since Joseph does not need divination to know that the brothers have possession of his divination cup” (op. cit. on vv. 14-17). Judah takes the lead in response. He “said, ‘What can we say to my lord? What can we speak? How can we clear ourselves? God has found out the guilt of your servants; here we are then, my lord’s slaves, both we and also the one in whose possession the cup has been found” (v. 16). Judah refers to the more stringent punishment, conditionally proposed by the brothers before the search (v. 9), not the limitation to the one guilty proposed by the steward (v. 10). “God has found out the guilt,” says Hendel, is “similarly ironic, since their guilt does not concern the cup, but their sale of Joseph into slavery” (ibid.). Of this expression, Rabbi Hertz says, “The exclamation does not imply admission of that particular sin: it is the wrong done to their father and to Joseph in the olden days which is behind Judah’s confession. The work of the moral regeneration of the brothers is complete” (op. cit., on v. 16). Joseph responds: “Far be it from me that I should do so! Only the one in whose possession the cup was found shall be my slave; but as for you go up in peace to your father” (v. 17). Levenson says, “Joseph forces his older brothers to face and, moreover, to accept the special place that Benjamin (Joseph’s alter ego) has in his father’s heart” (op. cit., on v. 17). What Joseph proposes is the one course of action–perhaps without realizing it–that Judah and the others dare not take! Judah had earlier said to Israel (Jacob), “If I do not bring him [Benjamin] back to you and set him before you, then let me bear the blame forever” (43:9). Judah’s protest becomes an impassioned plea, but that is tomorrow’s lesson.

Romans 8:1-10

Life in the Spirit

8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and to deal with sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 so that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. 6 To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. 7 For this reason the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God's law-indeed it cannot, 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

9 But you are not in the flesh; you are in the Spirit, since the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. 10 But if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. (Romans 8:1-10, NRSV)

The following comments are based on those of April 11, 2009 (Holy Saturday, Year One), when the reading was Romans 8:1-11 and comments were repeated from earlier, as noted there.

Wilbur T. Dayton calls Romans chapter eight “the great peak of doctrine and experience toward which the epistle has been building.” He says,

This is the normal Christian life under the full blessing of the Gospel of Christ. This includes both justifying and sanctifying grace and a walk in the Spirit. . . . It is the full bloom of spiritual health–the fulfillment of all the capacities of human personality in the grace of God. It is not the destruction of any part of human nature, however troublesome it may have proved to be in its depraved condition. Rather, it is the purification, adaptation, and direction of all to the achievement of a moral idealism and a spiritual reality. (“Romans,” The Wesleyan Bible Commentary, V, 1965, p. 52)

Dayton says that “three ideas form a clue to the treatment: the human, the carnal, and the spiritual.” He sees “the human delivered” in Romans 8:1-3, “the carnal displaced” in verses 4-6, and “the spiritual enthroned in verses 9-11 (ibid., pp. 52-54).

Notwithstanding all the ravages of the Fall [i.e. humanities fall due to the sin of Adam] and of sin, the human is valuable and worth saving. . . . One must never lose sight of genuine human values in the conflict between a sovereign God and the realm of evil. Man is not a mere thing, tossed about by other powers. He is a person, made in the image of God–for dominion. The rescue of the human from the carnal and its fulfillment in the spiritual are in marked contrast to the misery of chapter 7. (ibid., p. 52)

For the Christian believer, the work of Christ and the presence of the Holy Spirit provide the remedy for the power of sin and the sinner's helplessness in wanting to do the good but finding himself/herself unable to do it. “There is therefore (a[ra, ara) now no condemnation (katavkrima, katakrima) for those who are in Christ Jesus,” says Paul (Rom. 8:1). The word a[ra (ara), translated “therefore,” is defined as a “marker of an inference made on the basis of what precedes–(a) in declarative statement, and with colloquial flavor so, then, consequently, you see (B-D-F sec. 451, 2)” (Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich [BDAG], A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3^rd ed., 2000, s.v. a[ra, ara). While the shorter word krivma (krima) can refer to a “judicial verdict . . . mostly in an unfavorable sense,” it can also refer to a “legal action taken against someone, dispute, lawsuit,” the “content of a deliberative process, decision, decree,” or the “action or function of a judge, judging, judgment” (BDAG, s.v. krivma, krima). But the compound word used here for “condemnation” (katavkrima, katakrima) refers specifically to condemnation:

In this [i.e. the definition of katavkrima, katakrima] and the cognates that follow the use of the term ‘condemnation’ does not denote merely a pronouncement of guilt . . . but the adjudication of punishment.) Judicial pronouncement upon a guilty person, condemnation, punishment, penalty . . . [and with ref. to Rom. 8:1] “no death-sentence for those who are in Christ Jesus. (BDAG, s.v. katavkrima, katakrima)

John Wesley begins his notes on Romans, chapter eight, as follows: There is therefore now no condemnation - Either for things present or past. Now he comes to deliverance and liberty. The apostle here resumes the thread of his discourse, which was interrupted, Rom 7:7. (http://wesley.nnu.edu/john_wesley/notes/romans.htm#Chapter+VIII , accessed again March 7, 2010). This treats Romans 7:7-25 as a parenthetical section, so to speak, an excursus on the question, Is the law sin? and its ramifications. The discussion was important, of course, but the implication of Wesley’s term “interrupted” is that Romans 7:6 and 8:1, in a sense, belong together: “But now we are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we are slaves not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit (7:6); consequently, “there is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (8:1).

Paul continues: “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you (se, se, 2^nd person sing. pronoun) free from the law of sin and of death” (v. 2 NRSV). Some may remember a different pronoun in the older translation of this verse: “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me (me, me, 1^st person sing. pronoun) free from the law of sin and death” (v. 2 AV/KJV). A few early witnesses to the text have the 1^st person plural pronoun us (hJma:V, hēmas), and the early Christian theologian Origen omits the pronoun in citing the verse. In these circumstances Kurt Aland and the Committee for the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament (3^rd ed., 1975) indicate uncertainty with the letter “D,” which “shows a very high degree of doubt concerning the reading selected for the text” (p. xiii). As in chapter 7, where Paul says “I” as a “generic” description of someone still “under law,” the pronoun here, whether first person or second, and whether singular or plural, represents anyone whom “the law of the Spirit of life has set . . . free from the law of sin and of death” (8:2). Paul explains: “For God has done what the law (novmoV, nomos), weakened by the flesh (to; savrx, to sarx), could not do: by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and to deal with sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, so that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh (kata; savrka, kata sarka) but according to the Spirit (kata; pneu:ma, kata pneuma)” (vv. 3-4). The preposition katav (kata), translated “according to” sets up the contrast between “flesh” (savrx , sarx) and Spirit (or ‘spirit’ [cf. NRSV text notes on vv. 2, 4, 5, 6, 9a, 10; but not on ‘Spirit’ in vv. 9b, c, 11a, b, 13, 14] pneu:ma, pneuma) through 8:3-16, with one or both terms appearing in every verse. Two definitions given for pneu:ma, pneuma (‘Spirit’ or ‘spirit’) are

(5) God’s being as controlling influence, with focus on association with humans, Spirit, spirit as that which differentiates God from everything that is not God, as the divine power that produces all divine existence, as the divine element in which all divine life is carried on, as the bearer of every application of the divine will. All those who belong to God possess or receive this spirit and hence have a share in God’s life. This spirit also serves to distinguish Christians from all unbelievers (cp. PGM 4, 1121ff, where the spirit is greeted as one who enters devotees and, in accordance with God’s will, separates them from themselves, i.e. from the purely human part of their nature); for this latter aspect s. esp. 6 below.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(6) the Spirit of God as exhibited in the character or activity of God’s people or selected agents, Spirit, spirit . . . (b) Unless frustrated by humans in their natural condition, the Spirit of God produces a spiritual type of conduct Gal. 5:16, 25 and produces the karpo;V tou: pneuvmatoV [karpos tou pneumatos, ‘fruit of the spirit’] vs. 22. (BDAG, s.v. pneu:ma, pneuma)

The preposition “according to” (katav (kata) is a “marker of norm of similarity or homogeneity, according to, in accordance with, in conformity with, according to” (BDAG, s.v. katav (kata), and it emphasizes the contrast between walking, that is, living, in conformity with the flesh, and walking, that is, living, in conformity with the Spirit. Although “flesh” (savrx , sarx) does not always have the negative implications that it has here–note, for example, its use in reference to the incarnation of Christ, “And the Word became flesh (savrx , sarx) and lived among us” (Jn. 1:14a)–it has been defined in Paul’s usage here as follows:

“The physical body as functioning entity, body, physical body . . . (c) as instrument of various actions or expressions.–a. In Paul’s thought esp., all parts of the body constitute a totality known as savrx [sarx] or flesh, which is dominated by sin to such a degree that wherever flesh is, all forms of sin are likewise present, and no good thing can live in the savrx [sarx] Ro 7:18 ” (BDAG, s.v. savrx, sarx).

But Dayton, as noted above, clearly distinguishes between “any part of human nature, however troublesome it may have proved to be in its depraved condition,” and the flesh as such.

There had indeed to be a death under the condemnation of God. Sin is no light matter. But upon what is the condemnation now passed? It is not upon humanity. It is not upon any single capacity or natural appetite of human nature. It is not even upon “flesh.” It is upon the sin that inhabited the flesh. It was this sin that law exposed but could not destroy. Law was frustrated by the weakness of the human and the consequent lack of effective human cooperation. But what neither the law nor the human could accomplish, God did. “He, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh” [cited from ASV, the American Standard Version of 1901]. (op. cit., pp. 52-53)

“For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on (fronou:sivn, phronousin) the things of the flesh,” says Paul, “but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit” (v. 5). The verb translated “set their minds on” is defined as “to give careful consideration to something, set one’s mind on, be intent on,” and the phrase, “fronei:n tav tinoV, phronein [infinitive] ta tinos, is defined as to “take someone’s side, espouse someone’s cause” (BDAG, s.v. fronevw, phroneō). As noted above, the word “Spirit,” capitalized and representing the Holy Spirit, might be understood as “spirit” (cf. NRSV text not a). But according to definitions given above, either way, it means living under God’s controlling influence, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. According to Wesley,

They that are after the flesh - Who remain under the guidance of corrupt nature. Mind the things of the flesh - Have their thoughts and affections fixed on such things as gratify corrupt nature; namely, on things visible and temporal; on things of the earth, on pleasure, (of sense or imagination,) praise, or riches. But they who are after the Spirit - Who are under his guidance. Mind the things of the Spirit - Think of, relish, love things invisible, eternal; the things which the Spirit hath revealed, which he works in us, moves us to, and promises to give us. (op. cit., on v. 5)

“To set the mind on the flesh is death,” says Paul, “but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace” (v. 6). On this verse, Wesley says, following the older, AV/KJV, translation:

For to be carnally minded - That is, to mind the things of the flesh. Is death - The sure mark of spiritual death, and the way to death everlasting. But to be spiritually minded - That is, to mind the things of the Spirit. Is life - A sure mark of spiritual life, and the way to life everlasting. And attended with peace - The peace of God, which is the foretaste of life everlasting; and peace with God, opposite to the enmity mentioned in the next verse. (ibid., on v. 6)

Paul now concludes the negative side of this comparison. “For this reason the mind that is set on the flesh (to; frovnhma th:V sarkovV, to phronēma tēs sarkos) is hostile to God; it does not submit to God's law–indeed it cannot, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God” (vv. 7-8). The noun frovnhma (phronēma), related–the result, as one might say–to the verb fronevw (phroneō), is defined as “the faculty of fixing one’s mind on something, way of thinking, mind(-set), in our lit. (only Rom. 8) with focus on strong intention aim, aspiration, striving” (BDAG, s.v. frovnhma, phronēma).

So far, the comparison has defined living according to the flesh by the contrast with living according to the Spirit. But now Paul turns to the positive side. “But you are not in the flesh; you are in the Spirit, since (ei[per, eiper) the Spirit of God dwells in you” (v. 9a). The conjunction ei[per (eiper) is a compound of eij (ei, “if,” sometimes “since”) and per (per), the latter an “enclitic particle, with intensive and extensive force (B-D-F sec. 107),” found in the New Testament only in compounds with other particles. The conjunction ei[per (eiper) means “if indeed, if after all, since” (BDAG, s.v. ei[per, eiper ; eij, ei; and per, per). Paul assumes that his readers are in fact “in the Spirit,” not “in the flesh,” that is, the flesh that had been under the power of sin. But he reminds them of the alternative. “Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him” (v. 9b). Of this statement, Wesley says, “If any man have not the Spirit of Christ - Dwelling and governing in him. He is none of his - He is not a member of Christ; not a Christian; not in a state of salvation. A plain, express declaration, which admits of no exception. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear!” (op. cit., on v. 9). C. K. Barrett translates the phrase, “the Spirit of Christ” (pneu:ma Cristou:, pneuma Christou) as “the Spirit that comes from Christ,” thinking, perhaps, of something like the “genitive of origin and relationship” (cf. Blass-Debrunner-Funk [BDF], A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 1961, sec. 162). Barrett adds, “It is idle to seek a distinction between ‘Spirit of God’ and ‘Spirit of Christ.’ Each is a correct description of what Paul means. The Spirit is the Spirit of God; and it is only through Christ that the Spirit is known and received” (A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Harper’s New Testament Commentaries, 1957, on Rom. 8:9).

Barrett says that “a more serious question is raised in the next verse,” that is, verse 10. Paul continues by saying, “But if (eij, ei) Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness” (v. 10). Neil Elliott says, “Paul shifts from speaking of being ‘in Christ’ (v. 1) or in the Spirit to having the Spirit or Christ dwell within oneself (6:22; 7:4)” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on Rom. 8:9-10). Three consecutive verses in this passage use conditional particles, ei[per (eiper, v. 9) or eij (ei, vv. 10, 11, cf. vv. 13, 17). The first, ei[per (eiper), as discussed above is translated “since” (NRSV, International Standard Version, cf. “if so be that” AV/KJV, “if indeed” NKJV, NASB, TNIV). But the instances of eij (ei) that follow are usually translated as “if,” with a notable exception: “Since Christ lives within you, even though your body will die because of sin, your spirit is alive because you have been made right with God” (8:10 New Living Bible, 1997). William D. Mounce says of Greek “first-class conditional sentences,” in which class each of these (vv. 9-11) would fall, that they are

called ‘conditions of fact.’ These sentences are saying that if something is true, and let’s assume for the sake of the argument that it is true, then such and such will occur.” But he adds, “Sometimes the apodosis [i.e., the result, often introduced by ‘then’] is clearly true, and you can translate ‘Since such and such, then such and such.’ At other times the protasis [i.e., the ‘if’ clause] is not so obvious and you cannot use ‘since.’ (Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar, 2^nd ed., 2003, p. 341)

Cullen I. K. Story makes a distinction here between “a true condition” and “a possible condition,” both introduced by eij (ei, “if”) (Greek to Me, 1979, p. 202). Clearly, whether to translate with “if” or “since” is a matter of the translator’s judgment within the context, and both are represented in modern versions in each of these instances. But the point is Paul’s description of the reality for one who has come to faith in Christ and lives according to the Spirit. Wesley puts it this way: “Now if Christ be in you - Where the Spirit of Christ is, there is Christ. The body indeed is dead - Devoted to death. Because of sin - Heretofore committed. But the Spirit is life - Already truly alive. Because of righteousness - Now attained. From Rom 8:13, St. Paul, having finished what he had begun, Rom 6:1, describes purely the state of believers” (op. cit., on v. 10).

Today’s reading ends with verse 10, but we may note that the third conditional sentence here offers the promise of the Christian’s hope for resurrection. “If (eij, ei) the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit that dwells in you. Among other benefits of grace noted here, Dayton adds the following, with reference especially to verse 11:

The most urgent and wonderful aspect of redemption relates to the spiritual. But that is not all. The Spirit’s work in the body of Christ brought resurrection from the dead. The same is guaranteed to us by the Spirit dwelling in us. Grace must eventually meet physical as well as spiritual needs. (op. cit., p. 54)

John 5:25-29

25 "Very truly, I tell you, the hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. 26 For just as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself; 27 and he has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man. 28 Do not be astonished at this; for the hour is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29 and will come out-those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation. (John 5:25-29, NRSV)

The following comments on John 5:25-29 are based on relevant comments on John 5:19-29 from January 27, 2010 (Wednesday in the week of the Third Sunday after the Epiphany, Year Two). Comments then were based on those of March 12, 2009 (Thursday in the week of the Second Sunday of Lent, Year One), when comments were repeated from August 18, 2008 (Monday in the week of the Sunday closest to August 17, Year Two), and earlier, as noted there.

For the Sundays of Lent in Year Two, the daily readings use selected passages from the Gospel according to John. Today’s ready continues from the reading of last Sunday (John 5:19-24). That reading concluded with a significant claim by Jesus. “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” (Jn. 5:24). Today we come to a clarification of that claim. “Very truly, I tell you,” says Jesus, “the hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live” (v. 25). He compares the life-giving function of God the Father to his own functions of giving life and judgment. “For just as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself; and he has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man (vv. 26-27). Addressing the Jews who were persecuting him (v. 16), Jesus continues. “Do not be astonished at this; for the hour is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice [that is, the voice of the Son of Man = Jesus] and will come out–those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation” (vv. 28-29)

Jesus continues to discuss resurrection and judgment. “Very truly, I tell you, the hour is coming, and is now here,” he says, “when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will life” (v. 25). According to Raymond E. Brown, “The reference is primarily to the spiritually dead (Eph ii 1; ‘He made you alive when you were dead through trespasses and sins’). However, vv. 26-30 show that the physically dead are not forgotten” (The Gospel according to John, I-XII, Anchor Bible, vol. 29, 1966, on Jn. 5:25). Brown refers to his earlier comment on “is coming and is now here,” 4:25: When we contrast this with v. 21, we find in John the same eschatological tension that is apparent in the Synoptic references to the kingdom–it is future, and yet it is at hand. The idea seems to be that the one is present who, at the hour of glorification, will render possible adoration in Spirit by his gift of the Spirit” (ibid., on 4:23).

The Father’s gift of life (life-giving power) to the Son is repeated. “For just as the Father has life in himself,” says Jesus, “so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself” (v. 26). This “life in himself” is related to the role of judgment mentioned earlier (v. 22), for “he [i.e., the Father] has given him [i.e., the Son] authority to execute judgment, because he [i.e., the Son] is the Son of Man (uiJo;V ajnqrwvpou, huios anthrōpou)” (v. 27). “The expression ‘Son of Man’ is anarthrous,” says Brown–meaning that in Greek, neither the noun “Son” nor the noun “Man” has the definite article oJ (ho = “the”). This, he says,

is the only time in the Gospels that there is no article before either noun. Some suggest that the expression here means simply ‘man,’ thus ‘. . . to pas judgment on what [ho ti for hoti] man is. In our opinion the context renders this unlikely. There is no article in the Greek of Dan. vii 13 . . . In the Synoptic picture of the final judgment and the separation of the good from the evil, the Son of Man has an important role (Mark xiii 26; Matt. xiii 41, xxv 31; Luke xxi 36). (ibid., on 5:27)

Scholars have noted a shift in emphasis here. “The contrast . . . between the final eschatology of vss. 26-30 and the realized eschatology of 19-25 is quite marked,” says Brown (ibid., p. 220, on 5:16-30). He sees similar words and thought forms in both paragraphs, but “the Son-Father terminology” gives way to the “Son of Man” title, and “We hear in vs. 28 that ‘an hour is coming,’ but the ‘and is now here’ of 25 is missing.” However, the paragraph division of the New Revised Standard Version comes between verses 24 and 25–Brown divides between 25 and 26 (ibid., p. 213)–thus bringing verses 25 and 28 into the same paragraph. “Do not be astonished at this,” says Jesus, referring to the authority given to the the Son of Man, “for the hour is coming when all who are in their graves will hear this voice and will come out–those who have done good, to resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation” (vv. 28-29). There is a distinction to be made between the life believers have now, “eternal life” (v. 24), and the future “resurrection of life” (v. 29). But these are not incompatible. Obery M. Hendricks, Jr. puts these respective interpretations side by side. Of the former he says, “Anyone who believes on the basis of Jesus’ word has already passed into eternal life; see 11:26; 1 Jn. 3:14” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on Jn. 5:24); and of the latter, “The voice of Jesus will signal the final resurrection in which all will meet judgment (cf. Dan. 12:1-3; 1 Thess. 4:13-18)” (ibid., on vv. 25-30). We believe that Jesus brings a marvelous quality of life for the hear and now, with the hope of a glorious future “in my Father’s house” (14:2).

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net