Leviticus 26:27-42

27 But if, despite this, you disobey me, and continue hostile to me, 28 I will continue hostile to you in fury; I in turn will punish you myself sevenfold for your sins. 29 You shall eat the flesh of your sons, and you shall eat the flesh of your daughters. 30 I will destroy your high places and cut down your incense altars; I will heap your carcasses on the carcasses of your idols. I will abhor you. 31 I will lay your cities waste, will make your sanctuaries desolate, and I will not smell your pleasing odors. 32 I will devastate the land, so that your enemies who come to settle in it shall be appalled at it. 33 And you I will scatter among the nations, and I will unsheathe the sword against you; your land shall be a desolation, and your cities a waste.

34 Then the land shall enjoy its sabbath years as long as it lies desolate, while you are in the land of your enemies; then the land shall rest, and enjoy its sabbath years. 35 As long as it lies desolate, it shall have the rest it did not have on your sabbaths when you were living on it. 36 And as for those of you who survive, I will send faintness into their hearts in the lands of their enemies; the sound of a driven leaf shall put them to flight, and they shall flee as one flees from the sword, and they shall fall though no one pursues. 37 They shall stumble over one another, as if to escape a sword, though no one pursues; and you shall have no power to stand against your enemies. 38 You shall perish among the nations, and the land of your enemies shall devour you. 39 And those of you who survive shall languish in the land of your enemies because of their iniquities; also they shall languish because of the iniquities of their ancestors.

40 But if they confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their ancestors, in that they committed treachery against me and, moreover, that they continued hostile to me– 41 so that I, in turn, continued hostile to them and brought them into the land of their enemies; if then their uncircumcised heart is humbled and they make amends for their iniquity, 42 then will I remember my covenant with Jacob; I will remember also my covenant with Isaac and also my covenant with Abraham, and I will remember the land. (Leviticus 26:27-42, NRSV)

The following comments are based on those of April 30, 2008 (Wednesday in the Sixth Week of Easter, Year Two), when comments were repeated from May 24, 2006 (Wednesday in the week of the Sixth Sunday of Easter, Year Two):

Yesterday’s reading focused on the promised rewards for obedience and the threatened penalties for disobedience in Leviticus, chapter 26. The blessings portion was completed yesterday, but today’s reading continues the portion on the curses for disobedience. “But if despite this, you disobey me, and continue hostile to me (yr9q@&B4 ym09f9 MT,k4lah3v1&, wah ^alaktem ‘immî b ^eqerî),” says the LORD, “I will continue hostile to you in fury (yr9q@7-tmaH3B1& Mk,m0Af9, ‘immākem bach ^amath-qerî ); I in turn will punish you myself sevenfold for your sins” (Lev. 26:27-28). According to William L. Holladay, the word *yr9q4 (q ^erî ) means “(hostile) encounter,” and specifically here, “halāk ‘im . . . (b ^e)qerî resist, set oneself against Lev. 26:21-26; hālak ‘im . . . bach ^amat-qerî resist furiously Lev. 26:28” (A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 1971, 10^th corrected impression 1988, s.v. *yr9q4, q ^erî* ). According to Rabbi J. H. Hertz, commenting on “in fury, the continued stubbornness of the people will lead to direr and direr punishment. The warnings now reach the climax of horror” (Pentateuch & Haftorahs, 2^nd ed., 24^th printing, 1981, on Lev. 26:28). Horror indeed! The LORD mentions cannibalism. “You shall eat the flesh of your sons, and you shall eat the flesh of your daughters” (v. 29). The LORD threatens: “I will destroy your high places and cut down your incense altars; I will heap your carcasses on the carcasses of your idols. I will abhor you” (v. 30). The destruction described resembles that of the most brutal invading army. “I will lay your cities waste, will make your sanctuaries desolate, and I will not smell your pleasing odors” (v. 31). Of “your sanctuaries,” Rabbi Hertz says, “God will not associate Himself with such a Temple; hence ‘your sanctuaries,’ not ‘My sanctuary’ as in v. 2. The plural may refer to the different divisions of the Sanctuary” (ibid., on v. 31). “I will devastate the land,” says the LORD, “so that your enemies who come to settle in it shall be appalled at it” (v. 32). One cannot help thinking ahead to the devastation caused by the Assyrian and Babylonian invasions. But the picture described exceeds even those invasions. According to the Rabbi, “Amazement will seize them [i.e., the invading armies] at the appalling desolation, and they will perceive that it is due to superhuman agency” (ibid., on v. 32). “And you I will scatter among the nations,” says the LORD, “and I will unsheathe the sword against you; your land shall be a desolation, and your cities a waste” (v. 33). With that we do think of the later invasions, devastation, and exile of North Israel, and later of Judah. Baruch J. Schwartz summarizes: “The final blow. The enemy’s siege of Israel’s towns will culminate in the worst of its horrors, cannibalism resulting from dire famine (a trope in accounts of siege). It will end with the utter destruction of the towns, followed by desolation of the land and the dispersion of the population” (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, on Lev. 26:27-33).

John E. Hartley calls attention to an arrangement of the curses “to express increasing severity”:

Several elements are employed to communicate that increasing ferocity. First is the variation in the lead formulation . . . Second is the repetition of the condition of Israel’s disobedience before each set of curses. This repetition stands in marked contrast to the single mention of the condition of obedience at the head of the list of blessings. This type intimates that Israel’s obstinacy toward Yahweh grows stronger. Third is the use of the term rsy, ‘discipline, punish.’ This verb signifies that the curses are disciplines designed to awaken the people to their wrongful ways. . . . Fourth is the use of the phrase ‘seven times for your sins’ in the last four curses (vv. 18, 21, 24, 28). This symbolic number communicates that Yahweh will dramatically increase the level of punishments at each new stage in response to Israel’s continued sinning. Fifth, to highlight the purpose of the sequence of the curses and to stress their interrelatedness, they are arranged in an A:B:C::C:B pattern by the terms used for Yahweh’s afflicting his people. The key wording of the last four curses is as follows: Mktx hrsyl ytpsyv, ‘and I shall continue to discipline you’ (v. 18); hlm Mkylf ytpsyv, ‘and I shall increase on you smiting’ (v. 21); Mktx ytkhv, ‘and I shall smite you’ (v. 24); Mktx Ytrsyv, ‘and I shall discipline you’ (v. 28). Each level of punishment will be designed to awaken Israel to her waywardness so that she might repent before experiencing the ultimate curse. (John E. Hartley, Leviticus, Word Biblical Commentary, 4, 1992, p. 458 on Lev.. 26:3-46).

Schwartz agrees with the general tenor of this assessment, but prefers some different vocabulary. “By analogy to Deut. Ch. 28 and the treaty curses found in Mesopotamian texts, scholars generally refer to this section as the ‘blessings and curses’ of the Holiness Legislation. But neither ‘bless’ nor ‘curse’ appears in the text, nor does the idea that these terms imply” (op. cit., on Lev. 26:3-45). On the negative portion, the “results of noncompliance,” Schwartz says, as cited in part yesterday:

As in Deut. Ch. 28, considerably more space is given to the threats than the promises; but in direct contrast to Deut. 11:13-17 (recited daily as part of the Shema) and 28:15-68, the disasters threatened here are not punishments. Rather they are warnings arranged as a series of successive attempts to discipline the Israelites, that is, to force them into obedience. Each stage demonstrates an example of the sort of deadly disaster God may let loose upon them if they persist in their refusal to obey. Even the final stage, though it includes the element of vengeance and seems at first to be aimed at bring Israel’s national existence to an end (as in Deuteronomy), is finally revealed to be yet another attempt at making Israel walk the straight and narrow. This stage, entailing destruction and exile, will culminate in Israel’s remorse; when this occurs God will remember His covenant and try once again to implement His plan of abiding in their midst and ruling over them. (ibid., on vv.14-45)

Even the desolation of the land and the captivity of the people will not be the end. God himself will make up for neglected sabbath years. “Then,” says the LORD, “the land shall enjoy its sabbath years as long as it lies desolate, while you are in the land of your enemies; then the land shall rest, and enjoy its sabbath years. As long as it lies desolate, it shall have the rest it did not have on your sabbaths when you were living on it” (vv. 34-35). The Rabbi comments on “be paid her sabbaths” (JPS 1917, for NRSV “enjoy its sabbath years”).

Better, satisfy its sabbaths; i.e. make compensation for the years of release which the Israelites did not observe according to the dictates of the Law (Leeser). Driver explains that the Heb. word rendered ‘be paid’ is the technical term in connection with the settlement of an account. When the people are exiled, the land, here personified, will receive payment of an overdue account in the long Sabbath-rest which it will then enjoy; see next v.” (op. cit., on v. 34)

The captives who survive the invasion will not escape. “And as for those of you who survive, I will send faintness into their hearts in the lands of their enemies; the sound of a driven leaf shall put them to flight, and they shall flee as one flees from the sword, and they shall fall though no one pursues. They shall stumble over one another, as if to escape a sword, though no one pursues; and you shall have no power to stand against your enemies” (vv. 36-37). “The two preceding verses [i.e., vv. 34-35] are a parenthesis,” says the Rabbi, “describing the ‘rest’ which the land would have, when its inhabitants had been carried into captivity. This verse resumes v. 33, and alludes to the fate, with its resulting cowardice and ‘spiritual slavery,’ that would be in store for those who escaped. ‘The author possessed the imagination of a poet as well as the eloquence of an orator’ (Kennedy)” (ibid., on v. 36). Of “stumble,” he adds, “In their panic, caused by demoralization and not by a real enemy, they would forget the need for mutual help; and each would endeavour to escape, even at the cost of sacrificing his brother–true psychology of the Golus [captivity]” (ibid., on v. 37). “You shall perish among the nations,” says the LORD, “and the land of your enemies shall devour you” (v. 38). “After focusing momentarily on the land,” says Schwartz, “the speaker now returns to the fate of the dispersed former inhabitants, not all of whom will survive the enemy assault. They will be persecuted by their captors and consumed by fear of dangers real and imagined; finally they will simply cease to exist” (op. cit., on vv. 36-38). Of “eat you up” (JPS, for NRSV “devour you”), the Rabbi says, “For the image of a land consuming those who dwell upon its soil, se3e Num. xiii, 32” (op. cit., on v. 38). “And those of you who survive shall languish (Uq0m0ay9, yimmaqqû) in the land of your enemies because of their iniquities; also they shall languish (Uq0m0ay9, yimmaqqû) because of the iniquities of their ancestors” (v. 39).Of “those of you who survive,” Schwartz says, “The repetition of the phrase (see v. 36) indicates that only a fraction of those who survive to go into exile will also survive the tribulation of the exile itself. after a few generations, hardly any will be left even of these” (op. cit., on v. 39). Holladay defines the word translated as “languish”: “putrefy, rot” in reference to wounds (Ps. 38:6) or “eyes and tongue” (Zech. 14:12), and metaphorically, “dwindle away” or “waste away (men) Lev. 26:39; Ezek. 4:17; 24:33; 33:10” (op. cit., on qqm, m-q-q, nifal). Of this term, “be heartsick over” (NJPS 1985, 1999 for NRSV “languish [in],” twice in each), Schwartz adds, “correctly, ‘will rot away because of,’ become fewer and fewer with the passage of time. The repeated refusal of earlier generations to obey God’s commands will be the cause of the misery of later ones” (ibid.). He also recognizes the metaphorical sense.

But in the end some relief for this seemingly endless devastation is offered. “But if they confess (UDvat4h9v4, w ^ehithwaddû) their iniquity and the iniquity of their ancestors, in that they committed treachery against me and, moreover, that they continued hostile to me–so that I, in turn, continued hostile to them and brought them into the land of their enemies; if then their uncircumcised heart is humbled and they make amends (Ucr4y9, yirtsû) for their iniquity, then will I remember my covenant with Jacob; I will remember also my covenant with Isaac and also my covenant with Abraham, and I will remember the land” (vv. 40-42). The word “if” in some translations of verse 40 (AV/KJV, TNIV, NRSV) does not represent one of the conditional particles, for example Mf9 (‘im), Nhe (hēn) or Ul (lû), but may be inferred or based on the conjunction -v4(w ^e-, cf. Holladay, op. cit., s.v. v4, w ^e, meaning no. 17). Jewish translations do not use “if,” but translate as a statement of fact. “And they shall confess their iniquity, and the iniquity of their fathers” (v. 40a JPS = NJPS). “At last,” says Schwartz, “the remaining survivors will consider the cause of what has happened, will realize it was their own (and their ancestors’ own) obduracy that caused their plight, and God will respond appropriately” (op. cit., on vv. 40-42). Of “atone for” (NJPS, for NRSV “make amends for”), he says “better, ‘make full restitution for.’ When they finally take upon themselves the commitment to comply with God’s demands, the slate will be wiped clean of the accumulated guilt” (ibid., on v. 41). Of the order, “Jacob . . .. Isaac . . . Abraham,” Rabbi Hertz says, “God is stirred to mercy by recalling the noble ancestors of Israel and the Covenant He entered into with each. In retrospect, the last comes first to mind” (op. cit., on v. 42).

Schwarts sees here a very complex “effect of this diatribe”:

On the one hand, it rains down upon the listener an unending barrage of fire and brimstone. The very contemplation of the horrors described forces the individual to consider the consequences of acting against the will of a God so uncompromising and so powerful. On the other hand, it casts God not in the role of the petty tyrant exacting retaliation for each infringement but rather as the undeterred ruler, patient but far from passive, who realizes that He may not achieve his end immediately and that severe measures may be necessary. God is pictured here as compelled to give repeated second chances, since He is bound and determined to have his way and cannot simply give up. In Priestly thought, the covenant cannot ever become null and void. (op. cit., on vv. 14-45).

According to Jacob Milgrom, who sees here “remorse and the recall of the covenant” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Lev. 26:40-45),

Vv. 40-41a constitute Israel’s confession that it committed sacrilege and stubbornly resisted god, and consequently God brought the people into exile. Vv. 41b-45 constitute God’s response: if Israel truly humbles itself and accepts (the justice of) its punishment, then God will remember the covenant and, as soon as the land has made up its neglected sabbaticals, will restore Israel to the land. The importance of this concession should not be underestimated. It approximates and perhaps influences the prophetic doctrine of repentance, which not only suspends the sacrificial requirements but eliminates them entirely. (ibid.)

The speech seems to anticipate much of Israel’s history as recorded, for example, in the Book of Judges (esp. Judg. 2:6-3:6), and in the summary written from a prophetic perspective in 2 Kings, chapter 17. But Israel survives, even today, as we all know.

Ephesians 1:1-10

Salutation

1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God,

To the saints who are in Ephesus and are faithful in Christ Jesus:

2 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Spiritual Blessings in Christ

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, 4 just as he chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless before him in love. 5 He destined us for adoption as his children through Jesus Christ, according to the good pleasure of his will, 6 to the praise of his glorious grace that he freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. 7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace 8 that he lavished on us. With all wisdom and insight 9 he has made known to us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure that he set forth in Christ, 10 as a plan for the fullness of time, to gather up all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth. (Ephesians 1:1-10, NRSV)

The following comments are based on relevant comments of January 10, 2010 (the First Sunday after the Epiphany, Year Two), when the reading was Ephesians 1:3-14, on relevant comments from January 12, 2009 (Monday in the week of the First Sunday after the Epiphany, Year One), and earlier comments as indicated there.

The salutation for the Epistle to the Ephesians is brief, and fits the pattern of other Epistles (cf. Phil. 1:1-2). It consists of three brief parts, identifying (1) himself as sender, “Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God”; (2) his recipients, “To the saints who are in Ephesus and are faithful in Christ Jesus:” and (3) his standard greeting, “Grace to; you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” (Eph. 1:1-2).

According to Jennifer K. Berenson MacLean, the greeting is “a common Pauline greeting drawing upon and transforming conventional Greek (grace [cavriV, charis]) and Hebrew (peace [eijrhvnh, eirēnē for MOlw!, šālôm]) salutations” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Eph. 1:2). But there is an unusual feature. In the words, “To the saints who are in Ephesus and are faithful in Christ Jesus” (v. 1b), the words “in Ephesus” (ejn =Efevsw/, en Ephesō(i) ) are lacking in a few of the oldest manuscripts: p⁴⁶ (dated about A.D. 200), x* (i.e. the original scribe of Codex Sinaiticus; a later “corrector” added the words “in Ephesus”), B* (i.e. the original scribe of Codex Vaticanus; where a later “corrector” also added the words “in Ephesus”), and a few others (Kurt Aland and others, The Greek New Testament, UBS 3^rd ed., 1975, apparatus notes on Eph. 1:1; cf. NRSV text note a). For various reasons, some scholars believe that the letter is not specifically addressed to the Christians at Ephesus, but, in the words of Paul J. Achtemeier, Joel B. Green and Marianne Meye Thompson, it was “originally a letter to more than one church, but that, unlike 1 Peter, a designation was not included, so that the churches that received it would know it was a general letter also intended for them” (Introducing the New Testament; Its Literature and Theology, 2001, p. 378). These authors admit that this explanation is speculative but suggest that “the phrase ‘in Ephesus’ may then be due to an early scribe combining the information that Tychicus delivered the letter (Eph. 6:21) with the note in 2 Tim. 4:12 that Paul had sent Tychicus to Ephesus” (ibid.).

In the Epistle to the Ephesians, Paul does not address a series of specific local problems as he does in 1 Corinthians, nor a single specific problem such as the “Colossian Heresy” (Col. 2:8-23). Ephesus, which, according to Charles H. Miller, “became capital of the Roman province of Asia and enjoyed the height of its prosperity in the first and second centuries A.D. as the fourth largest city in the empire” (Harper’s Bible Dictionary, rev. ed., 1996, s.v. Ephesus), was located in the western part of Asia Minor, now Turkey. According to Paul Trebilco, “The population of the city in the Roman period is generally estimated at between 200,000 - 250,000. This would probably make Ephesus the third largest city in the Empire after Rome and Alexandria” (The Early Christians in Ephesus from Paul to Ignatius, 2007, p. 17, on the Internet at http://books.google.com/books?id=BayYc9ufvJYC&pg=PA17&lpg=PA17&dq=Ephesus+A.D.+50+population&source=bl&ots=CjE5DU2D2h&sig=-vGISsg9F_WgL4Q49T_aqKJ0l2M&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result#PPA17,M1, accessed again May 12, 2010. This was found by a Google search for “Ephesus A.D. 50 population.”). In any event, Ephesus was large enough to have many problems. Paul “did extraordinary miracles” there (Acts 19:11), exorcizing evil spirits (v. 12), making “some itinerant Jewish exorcists” jealous (vv. 13-16), and supervising a public burning of magic books valued at “fifty thousand silver coins” (v. 19). But these problems were within the surrounding culture, not within the Christian community. So in Ephesians, more than in most of his other epistles, Paul waxes eloquently about spiritual blessings.

After the salutation, Paul’s letters usually begin with a “thanksgiving” that expresses gratitude for the faith and lives of his addressees, and indicates something of the contents of the letter to follow, for example, Romans 1:8-15; 1 Corinthians 1:4-9; Philippians 1:3-11. Sometimes, as here in Ephesians, the “thanksgiving” takes the form of a “blessing” (cf. 2 Cor. 1:3-7). In Ephesians, the thanksgiving (Eph. 1:15-23) follows the blessing (vv. 3-15). According to J. Paul Sampley, “Where a formal thanksgiving might be expected (cf. Rom. 1:8), there is an ancient Jewish prayer form (beginning Blessed be the God; see also 2 Cor. 1:3; 1 Pet. 1:3), which identifies the author with Jewish tradition. Vv. 15-23, however, incorporate many elements of a typical Pauline thanksgiving” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Eph. 1:3-23). Frequently in the Jewish liturgy, we meet the blessing, Unyhelox$ [hvhy] yn!dox3 hTAxa j`UrBA (Bārûk ’attāh ’ ^adōnāy ’ ^elōhênû, “Blessed art thou O Lord our God”). Paul’s benediction reviews God’s plan of salvation. “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,” says Paul, “who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places ( ejn toi:V ejpouranivoiV, en tois epouraniois), just as he chose (ejxelevxato, exelexato) us in Christ before the foundation of the world (pro; katabolh:V kovsmou, pro katabolēs kosmou) to be to be holy and blameless before him in love” (Eph. 1:3-4). “Heavenly places,” says Sampley, is “an expression peculiar to Ephesians (see v. 20; 2:6; 3:10; 6:12)” (op. cit., on v. 3). He refers of course to the phrase “in the heavenly places” ( ejn toi:V ejpouranivoiV, en tois epouraniois), not to the word ejpouravnioV (epouranios) as such (cf. 1 Cor. 15:40, 48, 49; Phil. 2:10; Heb. 3:1; 8:5). “In Christ,” says MacLean, is “a theme throughout this section, indicating Christ’s mediation of divine blessings” (op. cit., on Eph. 1:3). According to F. F. Bruce,

It was in Christ, then that God chose his people ‘before the world’s foundation.’ This phrase (or a similar one) appears a number of times in the NT, but here only in the Pauline corpus. It denotes the divine act of election as taking place in eternity. Time belongs to the created order: believers’ present experience of the blessings bestowed by God is the fulfilment on the temporal plane of his purpose of grace toward them conceived in eternity. (The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, NICNT, 1984, p. 254, on Eph. 1:4)

Bruce refers to John Calvin:

Calvin regards the phrase ‘in Christ’ as a ‘second confirmation of the freedom of election’ (the first being that it took place before the world’s foundation). ‘For if we are chosen in Christ, it is outside ourselves. It is not from the sight of our deserving, but because our heavenly Father has engrafted us, through the blessing of adoption, into the Body of Christ. In short, the name of Christ excludes all merit, and everything which men have of themselves; for when he says that we are chosen in Christ, it follows that in ourselves we are unworthy.’ (ibid., citing J. Calvin, ad loc., The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians, 1548, E.T., 1965, p. 125). (ibid., p. 255 and n. 32)

“He [i.e., Christ] destined (proorivsaV, proorisas) us for adoption as his children through Jesus Christ,” says Paul, “according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace that he freely bestowed on us in the Beloved” (Eph. 1:5-6). Frederick William Danker says the word proorivzw (proorizō ), translated “destined” here, means “determine beforehand ” (The Concise Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 2009, s.v. proorivzw, proorizō ). John Wesley agreed with Calvin on the concept of predestination in general, but not in its application to individuals in predetermining their salvation or damnation. Commenting here, Wesley says, “As he hath chosen us - Both Jews and gentiles, whom he foreknew as believing in Christ, 1 Pet. 1:2” (Explanatory Notes on the New Testament, on Eph. 1:4, on the Internet at the Wesley Theological Center, at http://wesley.nnu.edu/john_wesley/notes/ephesians.htm, accessed again May 12, 2010). Wesley continues: “Having predestinated us to the adoption of sons - Having foreordained that all who afterwards believed should enjoy the dignity of being sons of God, and joint - heirs with Christ. According to the good pleasure of his will - According to his free, fixed, unalterable purpose to confer this blessing on all those who should believe in Christ, and those only” (ibid., on v. 5, my emphasis). “Adoption,” says Sampley, is “the means by which Gentiles are included in God’s household. See 2:19; Gal. 4:5” (op. cit., on v. 5). For “adoption,” says Maclean, “see Rom. 8:15; Gal. 4:5)” (op. cit., on v. 5). “Grace (Greek cavriV, charis),” says Sampley, “echoes the salutation (v. 2) and is a technical term of benefaction that establishes reciprocity; God’s unconditional and previous election, described in vv. 3-7, places all believers in God’s debt” (op. cit., on v. 6). “The Beloved,” he adds, is “applied to Christ as a title nowhere else in the NT, though it is found in second-century Christian writings (cf. Letter of Barnabas 3:6; 4:3; Ascension of Isaiah 3:13)” (ibid.). But Maclean compares “beloved son” in Mark 1:11; Colossians 1:13 (op. cit., on v. 6).

The list of blessings comes to a certain climax in a detailed description of God’s plan of redemption and how it applies to Christian believers. “In him we have redemption (hJ ajpoluvtrwsiV, hē apolytrōsis) through his blood, the forgiveness (a[fesiV, aphesis) of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace that he lavished on us” (vv. 7, 8a). According to Frederick William Danker, the word translated “redemption” (ajpoluvtrwsiV, apolytrōsis), based on the idea of “release on payment of ransom,” means “ ‘freedom/liberation from an oppressive circumstance,’ release . . . In imagery suggesting deliverance from enslavement through payment of a ransom but with focus on deliverance as such” (The Concise Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 2009, s.v. ajpoluvtrwsiV, apolytrōsis). For Christians, of course, it means release from our enslavement to sin through the atoning sacrificial death of Christ. The word translated “forgiveness” (a[fesiV, aphesis), a noun, related to the verb ajfivhmi (aphiēmi), “send forth, send away,” a compound of i{hmi (hiēmi, not a NT word except in compounds), “send,” and ajpov (apo) “from.” Danker defines the noun as “1. release of prisoners Lk. 4:18a, of the downtrodden vs. 18b–2. in imagistic extension of release from confinement and cancellation of liabilities: forgiveness (of), release (from) with the gen. aJmartiw:n [hamartiōn] Mt. 26:28 and often; cp. Eph. 1:7; Heb. 9:22; 10:18” (ibid., s.v. a[fesiV, aphesis). Based on its etymology, the noun reminds us of Psalm 103:12, “as far as the east is from the west, / so far he removes our transgressions from us.”

This focus on redemption and deliverance is now placed with the larger perspective of God’s plans for us. “With all wisdom and insight, he [i.e., Christ] has made known to us the mystery (musthvrion, mystērion) of his will, according to his good pleasure that he set forth in Christ, as a plan for the fullness of time, to gather up (ajnakefalaiwvsasqai, anakephalaiōsasthai) all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth” (vv. 9-10). “The content of the mystery,” says Sampley, “a reference to God’s previously hidden purposes, is given in 3:3-9; see also 5:32; 6:19” (op. cit., on v. 9). For Maclean, the “mystery” is “the previously hidden plan of God, which here encompasses all creation” (op. cit. on v. 9). Bruce explains:

As regularly in the NT, a ‘mystery’ is something which has formerly been kept secret in the purpose of God but has now been disclosed. In Col. 1:27 the aspect of his purpose which has now been manifested to his people relates to their hope of glory, of which the indwelling Christ provides the guarantee here and now. But elsewhere Paul makes it plain that the coming glory of the people of God is only a part of his purpose of grace: all creation is to share in the fruits of Christ’s redemptive work, even in ‘the glorious liberty of the children of God’ (Rom. 8:21). So here, the universe has its place in God’s secret purpose, now revealed. In Col. 1:20 God’s good pleasure was ‘to reconcile all things to himself’ through Christ. Nothing less than that is contemplated here in his ‘good pleasure,’ his eternal decree, which he ‘planned’ in Christ. (op. cit., on Eph. 1:9)

On “to gather up,” Sampley says the Greek is “to head up” [cf. kefalhv, kephalē, ‘head’], and adds, “This image is developed later in the Letter where Christ is spoken of as the head of his body, the church (vv. 22-23; 4:15)” (op. cit., on v. 10). By “fullness of time,” says Maclean, Paul means “the culmination of human history,” and; “to gather . . . earth [means] the unification of the cosmos under and through Christ” (op. cit., on v. 10).

Matthew 22:41-46

The Question about David's Son (Mk 12.35-37; Lk 20.41-44)

41 Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them this question: 42 "What do you think of the Messiah? Whose son is he?" They said to him, "The son of David." 43 He said to them, "How is it then that David by the Spirit calls him Lord, saying,

44 'The Lord said to my Lord,

"Sit at my right hand,

until I put your enemies under your feet" '?

45 If David thus calls him Lord, how can he be his son?" 46 No one was able to give him an answer, nor from that day did anyone dare to ask him any more questions. (Matthew 22:41-46, NRSV)

The following comments are repeated here from relevant comments on Matthew 22:34-46 of December 8, 2009 (Tuesday in the week of the Second Sunday of Advent, Year Two), when the relevant comments were based on those on Matthew 22:41-46 of April 30, 2008 (Wednesday in the week of the Sixth Sunday of Easter, Year Two), and on earlier comments as noted there. Parallel passages for this reading are presented in the separate file, David’s Son or David’s Lord.

On Jesus’ Question about whether the Messiah is David’s Son or David’s Lord

Jesus poses a question to the Pharisees who were gathered together (Mt. 22:41, cf. v. 34). “What do you think of the Messiah?” he asks. “Whose son is he” In response, they say, “The son of David” (v. 42). At this, according to Dale C. Allison, Jr., “Jesus abandons his defensive posture [that is, in responding to a series of challenges, the Question about Paying Taxes, 22:15-22, about the Resurrection, vv. 23-33, and about the Greatest Commandment, vv. 34-40] and takes the offensive” (The Oxford Bible Commentary, 2001, p. 874, on Mt. 22:41-46). Earlier, the morning after the cleansing of the temple, the chief priests and elders challenged Jesus, asking “By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority?” (Mt. 21:23). But in the ensuing dialogues and parables, Jesus clearly takes the lead and is in control, as here. In Mark and Luke he simply introduces the subject of David’s son with a rhetorical question. “How can the scribes/they say that the Messiah is the son of David?” (Mk. 12:35b; Lk. 20:41).

Jesus points out an apparent enigma, if not a contradiction, implied by the Pharisees’ answer here. “How is it then,” he asks, “that David by the Spirit calls him Lord” (v. 43), and he cites Psalm 110:1

The Lord said to my Lord,

‘Sit at my right hand,

until I put your enemies under your feet?’ (v. 44, citing Ps. 110:1)

As for the wording of the Psalm quotation, Matthew and Mark end with “until I put your enemies under your feet” (Mt. 22:44c; Mk. 12:36d), whereas Luke and the Psalm itself say “until I make your enemies your footstool” (Ps. 110:1; Lk. 20:43). In the Psalm, “footstool” is the reading of both the Hebrew (Mdoh3, h^a dōm) and Greek ([LXX Ps. 109:1], uJpopovdion, hypopodion) texts. Mark apparently interpreted the reference to the footstool with “put your enemies under your feet,” and was followed by Matthew. Here the words “my Lord” in the line, “the LORD said to my Lord,” are understood as a reference to the Messiah. On the understanding of the Psalm as written by David, Jesus’ implication is that King David has addressed the Messiah as “my Lord.” With a rhetorical question, Jesus points out the “contradiction.” “If (Mt.) David thus / himself (Mk.) calls him Lord; so (Mk., Lk.) How can he be his son?” (Mt. 22:45; Mk. 12:37a; Lk. 20:44). In the Psalm, the first “LORD” (YHWH, pronounced ’adōnay, plural) refers to God, and the second (“my lord,” yn9dox3, ’adōnî, singular) is understood as a reference to the Messiah, or so Jesus could assume for his hearers. In effect, then, the question is, How can the Messiah be David’s son since David himself spoke by divine inspiration and called the Messiah “my lord”? J. Andrew Overman says, “The argument turns on the belief that the offspring cannot be greater than the progenitor” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Mt. 22:44). In the Old Testament context of the Psalm, according to John S. Kselman, “God promises the Davidic monarch in Jerusalem (Zion) victory over his enemies, prostrate before him” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Ps. 110:1-2), but the Psalm is frequently interpreted as a reference to Jesus in the New Testament (Acts 2:34-36; 1 Cor. 15:25, cf. vv. 27-28; Eph. 1:20; Heb. 1:13: 8:1; 10:12; 12:2). I take this as an example of what some call “the fuller sense (sensus plenior) of scripture.” Richard A. Horsley comments on Mark’s version of this dialogue: “This passage constitutes a rejection of any triumphant restoration of the Davidic state (which Bartimaeus and the shouts of the crowd may have suggested . . . , reciting one of the imperial Davidic psalms (Ps. 110:1) in the refutation” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Mk. 12:35-37. Jesus certainly did not intend to incite a political revolution. But Matthew puts the clincher, so to speak, on the dialogue. “No one was able to give him an answer, nor from that day did anyone dare to ask him any more questions” (Mt. 22:46). So, in the series of challenges by questioning, it appears that Jesus has the last word. “If David thus calls him Lord, how can he be his son?” (v. 45).

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net