Zechariah 4:1-14

Fifth Vision: The Lampstand and Olive Trees

4: The angel who talked with me came again, and wakened me, as one is wakened from sleep. 2 He said to me, "What do you see?" And I said, "I see a lampstand all of gold, with a bowl on the top of it; there are seven lamps on it, with seven lips on each of the lamps that are on the top of it. 3 And by it there are two olive trees, one on the right of the bowl and the other on its left." 4 I said to the angel who talked with me, "What are these, my lord?" 5 Then the angel who talked with me answered me, "Do you not know what these are?" I said, "No, my lord." 6 He said to me, "This is the word of the LORD to Zerubbabel: Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, says the LORD of hosts. 7 What are you, O great mountain? Before Zerubbabel you shall become a plain; and he shall bring out the top stone amid shouts of 'Grace, grace to it!' "

8 Moreover the word of the LORD came to me, saying, 9 "The hands of Zerubbabel have laid the foundation of this house; his hands shall also complete it. Then you will know that the LORD of hosts has sent me to you. 10 For whoever has despised the day of small things shall rejoice, and shall see the plummet in the hand of Zerubbabel.

"These seven are the eyes of the LORD, which range through the whole earth." 11 Then I said to him, "What are these two olive trees on the right and the left of the lampstand?" 12 And a second time I said to him, "What are these two branches of the olive trees, which pour out the oil through the two golden pipes?" 13 He said to me, "Do you not know what these are?" I said, "No, my lord." 14 Then he said, "These are the two anointed ones who stand by the Lord of the whole earth." (Zechariah 4:1-14, NRSV)

The following comments are repeated here from December 17, 2009 (Thursday in the week of the Third Sunday of Advent, Year Two), when comments were based on those of May 8, 2008 (Thursday in the week of the Seventh Sunday of Easter, Year One), when comments were repeated with some editing and supplement from December 20, 2007 (Thursday in the week of the Third Sunday of Advent, Year Two), when comments were repeated from December 15, 2005 (Thursday in the week of the Third Sunday of Advent, Year Two), and from June 1, 2006 (Thursday in the week of the Seventh Sunday of Easter, Year Two).

The book of Zechariah begins, after a brief introduction (Zech. 1:1-5), with a series of visions (1:7-6:15) with what Gregory Mobley calls a common “pattern: (a) vision, (b) question about its meaning, (c) angelic interpretation” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Zech. 1:6-6:15). Today’s reading is the account of the fifth vision (4:1-14). “The angel who talked with me came again,” says Zechariah, “and wakened me, as one is wakened from sleep. He said to me, ‘What do you see?’ ” (Zech. 4:1-2a). In his answer, Zechariah describes an unusual menorah. He says, “I see a lampstand all of gold (bhAz! traOnm4, m ^enôrath zāhāv), with a bowl on the top of it; there are seven lamps on it, with seven lips on each of the lamps that are on the top of it” (v. 2b). The menorah in the temple had seven lamps on seven branches according to the instructions in Exodus 25:31-40. In reference to the lampstand (menorah), Mobley refers to this passage from Exodus and says, “A normal lampstand (Heb. ‘menorah’), a sign of God’s presence, has seven lights; this lamp boasts forty-nine (seven times seven); symbolically, a surfeit of blessing” (ibid., on v. 2). But W. Sibley Towner challenges this description. “Lampstand,” he says, is “not the familiar seven-branched candelabrum of Ex. 25:31-40; 37:127-24. Archaeological evidence now confirms that the object envisioned here could be a bowl-shaped oil reservoir surmounting a golden base and fitted around the rim with seven (not forty-nine!) protruding spouts to serve as lamps” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Zech. 4:2). On the Internet web site, Jewish Virtual Library, A Division of The American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, it says:

The lamp stand in today's synagogues, called the ner tamid (lit. the continual lamp; usually translated as the eternal flame), symbolizes the menorah.

The nine-branched menorah used on Chanukah is commonly patterned after this menorah, because Chanukah commemorates the miracle that a day's worth of oil for this menorah lasted eight days.

The menorah in the First and Second Temples had seven branches. After the Temples were destroyed, a tradition developed not to duplicate anything from the Temple and therefore menorah's no longer had seven branches. The use of six-branched menoras became popular, but, in modern times, some rabbis have gone back to the seven-branched menoras, arguing that they are not the same as those used in the Temple because today's are electrified. (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/menorah.html, accessed again May 20, 2010).

On this web site it is said that “One of the oldest symbols of the Jewish faith is the menorah, a seven-branched candelabrum used in the Temple.” The author adds:

It has been said that the menorah is a symbol of the nation of Israel and our mission to be ‘a light unto the nations’ (Isaiah 42:6). The sages emphasize that light is not a violent force; Israel is to accomplish its mission by setting an example, not by using force. This idea is highlighted in the vision in Zechariah 4:1-6. Zechariah sees a menorah, and G-d explains: ‘Not by might, nor by power, but by My spirit.’ (ibid.)

Zechariah continues to describe his vision. “And by it (i.e., by the lampstand), there are two olive trees, one on the right side of the bowl and the other on its left” (Zech. 4:3). In the first chapter of Revelation, John sees “seven golden lampstands” (Rev. 1:12) which represent “the seven churches” that will be addressed in chapters 2 and 3 (Rev. 1:20). If each lampstand had seven branches with a light on each branch, this would add up to forty-nine lights. Later John sees “the two olive trees” (Rev. 11:4; cf. Zech. 4:3, 12) “and the two lampstands that stand before the Lord of the earth” (Rev. 11:4; for the two olive trees, cf. Zech 4:3, 12). As a practical matter, olive trees would furnish oil for the lamps in the temple, but the focus of the pairing of the lampstand and the trees (one complex lampstand and two trees in Zechariah, two lampstands and two trees in Rev., chap. 11) is to symbolically represent “the two anointed ones who stand by the Lord of the whole earth” (Zech. 4:14), who are reflected in “my two witnesses” whom the LORD grants “authority to prophesy for one thousand two hundred sixty days, wearing sackcloth” (Rev. 11:3). On the “two witnesses,” see further below.

“I said to the angel who talked with me,” says Zechariah, “ ‘What are these, my lord?’ Then the angel who talked with me answered me,’Do you not know what these are?’ I said, ‘No, my lord’ ” (Zech. 4:4-5). As it stands, the text suggests that the answer to the angel’s question is the promises to Zerubbabel (vv. 6-10a), but Towner has a different suggestion. “If vv. 6-7, 8-10a are construed as a pair of embedded oracles, v. 10b flows perfectly as the angel’s response to this question [i.e., the question in v. 5]” (op. cit., on v. 5). Ehud Ben Zvi has a similar view. “Those seven are the eyes of the LORD [is] probably the answer to the question in v. 4 regarding the meaning of the seven lamps of the lampstand. Cf. 3:9” (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, on Zech. 4:10). According to Zechariah, “He (i.e., the angel) said to me, ‘This is the word of the LORD to Zerubbabel: not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit says the LORD of hosts’ ” (v. 6). According to R. Lansing Hicks and Walter Brueggemann, “Through God’s spirit, Zerubbabel will complete the temple” (NOAB, 2^nd ed., 1994, on Zech. 4:6-10). “This v[erse],” says Ben Zvi, “has often played a significant role within Judaism, which has felt small and powerless, yet comforted by its reliance on God. It is inscribed on the front of the Synagogue of Cologne reconstructed after World War II” (op. cit., on Zech. 4:6).

In Zechariah’s word for Zerubbabel, the word of the LORD (through the angel) asks, “What are you, O great mountain?” and answers, “Before Zerubbabel you shall become a plain; and he shall bring out the top stone amid shouts of ‘Grace, grace (Nhe Nhe, chēn chēn) to it!’ ” (v. 7). The word translated “grace” (Nhe, chēn) could be translated “favor” (cf. William L. Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 1971, 4^th impression, 1978, s.v. Nhe, chēn). The recent Jewish translation of the shout is “Beautiful! Beautiful!” (NJPS 1985, 1999 Zech. 4:7); compare “God bless it! God bless it!” (TNIV Zech. 4:7). “O great mountain,” says Towner, is “possibly the Temple Mount, cluttered with ruins that would need to be removed. Perhaps the top stone should be understood as a stone from the former temple incorporated into the foundation deposit of the new structure. Mesopotamian sources attest to similar efforts to ensure sacral continuity” (op. cit., on v. 7).

Another word of the LORD is presented for Zerubbabel. “Moreover the word of the LORD (hvhy-rbaD4, d  ^evar-YHWH) came to me, saying, ‘The hands of Zerubbabel have laid the foundation of this house; his hands shall also complete it. Then you will know that the LORD of hosts has sent me to you. For whoever has despised the day of small things shall rejoice, and shall see the plummet (lyd9B4ha Nb,,x,hA, hā’even habb ^edîl) in the hand of Zerubbabel’ ” (vv. 8-10a). For verse 9, Towner refers to the same statement in 2:9, where he calls it “a formula suitable for the recognition of God’s work in history . . . (See also v. 11; 4:9; 6:15; see also Ezek. 33:33, where the prophet is validated by historical events). This slogan and its variations are thematic in Ezekiel, where they are used more than seventy times” (ibid., on 2:9). For “plummet” (v. 10 NRSV), the Jewish translation has “stone of distinction” (NJPS v. 10, with a text note, ‘Meaning of Heb. uncertain; others ‘plummet’ ). Holladay says lyd9B4 (b ^edîl) means “tin” in Num. 31:22, but the phrase lyd9B4ha Nb,,x,hA (hā’even habb ^edîl) is “uncertain, plumbline?” in Zech. 4:10, op. cit., s.v. lyd9B4, b ^edîl). Ben Zvi, commenting on the NJPS, says, “The expression the stone of distinction may be translated as ‘the stone of the plumb’ or ‘the plummet.’ The text implies and criticizes a sentiment akin to the one expressed in Hag. 2:3” (op. cit., on v. 10). On the words “day of small things,” Towner says,

This assurance seems to be addressed to those who have found the pace of restoration too feeble. The leadership of Zerubbabel promises renewed action. Now he is pictured at the end of the temple reconstruction process with plummet in hand. Recent commentators understand this object to be not a builders’ tool but rather an inscribed metallic tablet to be deposited in the finished structure. Such a practice is well attested in Babylonian and Persian texts. (op. cit., on v. 10a)

“These,” says the angel, “are the eyes of the LORD, which range through the whole earth” (v. 10b). As noted above, this may be the answer to the question in verse 4. “Then I [Zechariah] said to him, ‘What are these two olive trees on the right and the left of the lampstand?’ ” (v. 11). Zechariah repeats the question. “And a second time I said to him, ‘What are these two branches of the olive trees, which pour out the oil (bhAz!, zāhāv, lit. ‘gold,’ cf. NRSV text note b) through the two golden pipes? ” (v. 12). Mobley says, “Olive oil can have a golden hue. The olive trees then provide oil, here ‘gold,’ for the lamps” (op. cit., on v. 12). And Zechariah continues, “He said to me, ‘Do you not know what these are?’ I said, ‘No, my lord.’ Then he said, ‘These are the two anointed ones (rhA5c4y09ha-yn2B4, b ^enê-hayyitsts ^ehār, lit. ‘sons of olive-oil’) who stand by the Lord of the whole earth’ ” (vv. 13-14). Commenting on “the two anointed dignitaries [NJPS for ‘the two anointed ones’ NRSV], Ben Zvi says

the term is different from the one translated as ‘anointed’ in Lev. 4:3; 1 Sam. 2:10, 35; 26:9; Ps. 2:2, and passim. The two ‘sons of oil’ represent Joshua, the high priest, and Zerubbabel, the nonpriestly ruler who shares some royal responsibilities. It is not by chance that the text coins a unique expression rather than using a very common one. Most likely, the point is to avoid depicting Zerubbabel as a significant royal or messianic figure. Unlike the situation in the book of Haggai, Zerubbabel is not called ‘governor’ in Zechariah, but neither is he called ‘king,’ nor is it stated explicitly anywhere in the book that he is from David, nor can we assume that he was anointed. The openness of the text in this matter is remarkable, and hardly unintentional. (The high priest was presumably anointed–see Num. 3:3, 25–but his anointing did not carry any kingly attributes.) (op. cit., on v. 14)

But, based on the NRSV text, the two “anointed ones” are apparently Joshua the priest (Zech. 3:1-10; 6:11-13) and Zerubbabel, the heir apparent to the throne of David (Zech. 4:6, 7, 9, 10). Towner’s view differs somewhat from that of Ben Zvi.

At last the two olive trees are identified as the two anointed ones (lit. ‘sons of the oil’) and no doubt represent Joshua and Zerubbabel, the two heroes of the temple reconstruction effort in both Zech. 1-8 and Haggai. In Zechariah’s vision for the polity of the emerging Judean community, royal and priestly ‘messiahs’ (anointed ones) stand on either side of God, sharing leadership. The ‘oil’ referred to here is not that used for consecration of priest or king but rather that used for food and lamp fuel. If the lamp burns this very oil, then there is an exquisite interrelationship between the human and divine worlds, since human abundance would help feed the divine light. (op. cit., on v. 14)

Earlier, it appears that “my servant the Branch” (3:8) is Zerubbabel, but that later Joshua is called “Branch” (Zeph. 6:12). (Or is the “Branch” in 6:12 someone who is introduced to Joshua?). Gregory Mobley says of Zechariah 6:9-15, which he labels “the coronation,” that it

has difficulties, chiefly the absence of Zerubbabel. In 3:8, the Davidic term Branch seems to refer to Zerubbabel. In 4:1-14, two anointed ones, presumably Joshua and Zerubbabel, lead the community. In 4:9, Zerubbabel leads the Temple rebuilding efforts. Here, however, Joshua alone is the Branch and Temple-builder. What happened to Zerubbabel? As textual note b indicates, the Hebrew of v. 11 has the plural crowns. Probably an earlier reference to Zerubbabel has been lost. (op. cit., on Zech. 6:9-15)

King Darius I of Persia reasserted power after the weak rule of Cambyses, the son of Cyrus, and in the process, likely crushed any hopes for an immediate restoration of the Davidic dynasty and national sovereignty for Judah. But Judah was allowed, even encouraged, to practice her religion. Leadership in Judah under the Persians was by religious leaders, especially the priests such as Joshua.

As for the two witnesses in Revelation (see above), Bruce M. Metzger says they are “unnamed but resembling Zerubbabel and Joshua (Zech. 3:1-4, 14) as well as Elijah (vv. 5-6 [i.e. Rev. 11:5-6]; 2 Kg. 1:10) and Moses (v. 6; Ex. 7:17, 19). Their being “clothed in sackcloth [is] a sign that their prophecy was of repentance” (Bruce M. Metzger, NOAB, 2^nd ed., on Rev. 11:3).

But we may take courage from God’s word to Zerubbabel in the above reading, which offers both promise and challenge: "Not by might, nor by power, but by my spirit, says the LORD of hosts" (Zech. 4:6). Joshua and Zerubbabel faced a difficult task, to rebuild a nation from scratch, as it were. They surely needed the guidance of the spirit of the LORD, or the Holy Spirit, as we might say.

Ephesians 4:17-32

The Old Life and the New

17 Now this I affirm and insist on in the Lord: you must no longer live as the Gentiles live, in the futility of their minds. 18 They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of their ignorance and hardness of heart. 19 They have lost all sensitivity and have abandoned themselves to licentiousness, greedy to practice every kind of impurity. 20 That is not the way you learned Christ! 21 For surely you have heard about him and were taught in him, as truth is in Jesus. 22 You were taught to put away your former way of life, your old self, corrupt and deluded by its lusts, 23 and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, 24 and to clothe yourselves with the new self, created according to the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.

Rules for the New Life

25 So then, putting away falsehood, let all of us speak the truth to our neighbors, for we are members of one another. 26 Be angry but do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, 27 and do not make room for the devil. 28 Thieves must give up stealing; rather let them labor and work honestly with their own hands, so as to have something to share with the needy. 29 Let no evil talk come out of your mouths, but only what is useful for building up, as there is need, so that your words may give grace to those who hear. 30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with which you were marked with a seal for the day of redemption. 31 Put away from you all bitterness and wrath and anger and wrangling and slander, together with all malice, 32 and be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ has forgiven you. (Ephesians 4:17-32, NRSV)

The following comments are based on those of January 20, 2009 (Tuesday in the week of the Second Sunday after the Epiphany, Year One), when comments were repeated with editing and supplement from January 3, 2008 (Thursday in the week of the First Sunday after Christmas, references for January 3, Year Two), when comments were repeated from earlier as noted there. There is reference also to the comments of May 8, 2008 (Thursday in the week of the Seventh Sunday of Easter, Year Two).

Paul addresses his Gentile converts to Christianity, with a reminder that profound changes are expected in their living. “Now this I affirm and insist on in the Lord,” he says (Eph. 4:17a). This follows what Jennifer K. Berenson Maclean calls an “appeal for unity amid diversity” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on Eph. 4:1-16), and introduces what she calls an “appeal for a changed lifestyle” (ibid., on 4:17-5:21, with comparison of Col. 3:5-17). “You must no longer live as the Gentiles live, in the futility of their minds,” says Paul (4:17b), remarkably, since he is addressing mainly Gentile converts. J. Paul Sampley says, “Ironically in a letter addressed to Gentiles, the Gentiles denotes a rejected way of living” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Eph 4:17). It is perhaps not necessary to spell out the kinds of licentiousness and impurity that Paul means, nor to suppose that they characterize every last person in the Roman Empire of that day. But the emperor during Paul’s final years, Nero, is infamous for such a life style, and he no doubt had imitators. Tacitus, a Roman historian includes the following in his writing about Nero:

Still, not yet wishing to disgrace himself on a public stage, he instituted some games under the title of "juvenile sports," for which people of every class gave in their names. Neither rank nor age nor previous high promotion hindered any one from practising the art of a Greek or Latin actor and even stooping to gestures and songs unfit for a man. Noble ladies too actually played disgusting parts, and in the grove, with which Augustus had surrounded the lake for the naval fight, there were erected places for meeting and refreshment, and every incentive to excess was offered for sale. Money too was distributed, which the respectable had to spend under sheer compulsion and which the profligate gloried in squandering. Hence a rank growth of abominations and of all infamy. Never did a more filthy rabble add a worse licentiousness to our long corrupted morals. Even, with virtuous training, purity is not easily upheld; far less amid rivalries in vice could modesty or propriety or any trace of good manners be preserved. Last of all, the emperor himself came on the stage, tuning his lute with elaborate care and trying his voice with his attendants. There were also present, to complete the show, a guard of soldiers with centurions and tribunes, and Burrus, who grieved and yet applauded. Then it was that Roman knights were first enrolled under the title of Augustani, men in their prime and remarkable for their strength, some, from a natural frivolity, others from the hope of promotion. Day and night they kept up a thunder of applause, and applied to the emperor's person and voice the epithets of deities. Thus they lived in fame and honour, as if on the strength of their merits. (Tacitus, The Annals, Book XIV, 15, online at http://members.aol.com/zoticus/bathlib/nero.htm, accessed again May 5, 2008; apparently no longer available online May 20, 2010)

Of course, though many Gentiles probably lived as he implies, the real contrast is between the way one lives before and after salvation through Christ. F. F. Bruce defines it as “the pagan way of life,” which he adds, “must now be abandoned” (The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, NICNT, 1984, p. 355, on Eph. 4:17). “They,” says Paul (i.e. the “Gentiles”–read “unconverted”) “are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of their ignorance and hardness of heart” (v. 18). He adds that “they have lost all sensitivity and have abandoned themselves to licentiousness, greedy to practice every kind of impurity” (v. 19) Maclean sees this as “excessive and inappropriate sexual behavior” (op. cit., on v. 19). As Paul tells his readers, “That is not the way you learned Christ!” (v. 20).

Paul assumes that his readers have been taught better ways, assumes, perhaps, because, as a general letter to several congregations, he likely does not have personal acquaintance with them all. “For surely (ei[ ge, ei ge) you have heard about him [i.e., about Christ],” says Paul, “and were taught in him, as truth is in Jesus” (v. 21). The combination ei[ ge (ei ge), means “if indeed, inasmuch as” (Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich [BDAG], A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3^rd ed., 2000, s.v. eij, ei, meaning (6) (b) ). Bruce translates this verse as follows: “for I take it that you heard of him and were taught in him the way of truth as it is in Jesus” (op. cit., p. 354), and comments:

If Paul were writing to his own converts, he would not say, ‘I take it that you heard of Christ and were taught in him . . .’–any more than he would say that he assumed they had heard of his own special apostolic commission (Eph 3:2). He does not express doubt about the instruction they have received; he takes it for granted that they have learned something of the Christian way of life.” (ibid., p. 357, on v. 21)

Paul’s readers “were taught to put away [their] former way of life, [their] old self, corrupt and deluded by its lusts” (v. 22). They, and we, are “to be renewed in the spirit of [our] minds” and be “clothe[d] . . . with the new self” (vv. 23, 24a). Sampley says, “Metaphors of teaching and learning are interlaced with references to putting garments off and on for baptism” (op. cit., on vv. 20-24). “To learn Christ (v. 20),” he adds, “means not only to learn about him (v. 21) but also to put away the old way of life (v. 22; see also Rom. 6:6) and to be clothed with the new self (v. 24; se3e also Gal 3:27; Col. 3:10)” (ibid.). People are to “clothe [themselves] with the new self, created according to the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness” (v. 24).

Among other things this life “in true righteousness and holiness” has no place for falsehood. “So then,” says Paul, “putting away falsehood, let all of us speak the truth to our neighbors, for we are members of one another” (v. 25, citing Zech. 8:16; cf. Col. 3:8-9 and the call for “speaking the truth in love,” Eph. 4:15). The readers (and we) are warned: “Be angry but do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, and do not make room for the devil” (vv. 26-27). According to Bruce,

Our Lord himself warned his disciples that ‘everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment’ (Matt. 5:22). . . . How is it possible to ‘be angry without sinning’ (as the readers are directed in words drawn from Ps. 4:4 [LXX]? There is no doubt a proper place for righteous indignation; but there is a subtle temptation to regard my anger as righteous indignation and other people’s anger as sheer bad temper. Here it is suggested that anger can be prevented from degenerating into sin if a strict time limit is placed on it: ‘do not let the sun set on your anger.’ Let the reconciliation be effected before nightfall, if possible. If that is not possible–if the person with whom one is angry is not accessible, or refuses to be reconciled–then at least the heart should be unburdened of its animosity by the committal of the matter to God. (op. cit., p. 361, on v. 26)

“Thieves must give up stealing,” says Paul; “rather let them labor and work honestly with their own hands, so as to have something to share with the needy” (v. 28). Nor does evil speaking fit in the Christian way of life. “Let no evil talk come out of your mouths, but only what is useful for building up, as there is need, so that your words may give grace to those who hear” (v. 29). Paul reminds us that such sinful ways don’t belong in the Christian way of life. “And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God,” he says, “with which you were marked with a seal for the day of redemption” (v. 30). “Wrongful conduct,” says Sampley, “risks alienation from the Holy Spirit by which readers were set apart for God (see 1:13-14)” (op. cit., on v. 30).

Paul summarizes these negative admonitions. “Put away from you all bitterness and wrath and anger and wrangling and slander, together with all malice, and be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ has forgiven you” (vv. 31-32). All kinds of unworthy speech (v. 31) are set in contrast to what Bruce calls “a kind, tenderhearted, and forgiving spirit” (op. cit., on v. 32). According to Bruce,

There is a strong resemblance between this verse [i.e., v. 31] and 1 Pet. 2:1–‘put away all malice and all guile and insincerity and envy and all slander’–although the only term strictly common to the two passages is ‘malice.’ Similarly there is a strong resemblance between the positive exhortation of v. 32 and 1 Pet. 3:8–‘have unity of spirit, sympathy, love of the brethren, a tender heart, and a humble mind’–although, again, there is only one term (‘tenderhearted’) in common. (ibid., p. 364, on v. 31)

Bruce compares v. 32 to a passage in Colossians.

The converse to the unlovely attitudes of v. 32 is now recommended: a kind, tenderhearted, and forgiving spirit. All these graces, with others closely related, the readers of Col. 3:12-13 are urged to ‘put on.’ ‘As the Lord forgave you,’ says Paul to the Colossians, ‘so do you also forgive.’. . . It is in Christ that God has given his people their ‘redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of their sins’ (Eph. 1:7), just as it is in Christ that God was ‘reconciling the world to himself’ (2 Cor. 5:19). (ibid., pp. 364-365, on v. 32)

Matthew 9:1-8

9:1 And after getting into a boat he crossed the sea and came to his own town.

Jesus Heals a Paralytic (Mk 2.1-12; Lk 5.17-26)

2 And just then some people were carrying a paralyzed man lying on a bed. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven." 3 Then some of the scribes said to themselves, "This man is blaspheming." 4 But Jesus, perceiving their thoughts, said, "Why do you think evil in your hearts? 5 For which is easier, to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Stand up and walk'? 6 But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins"--he then said to the paralytic-"Stand up, take your bed and go to your home." 7 And he stood up and went to his home. 8 When the crowds saw it, they were filled with awe, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to human beings. (Matthew 9:1-8, NRSV)

The following comments are repeated here from October 6, 2009 (Tuesday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 5, Year One), when they were repeated with editing and supplement from May 8, 2008 (Thursday in the week of the Seventh Sunday of Easter, Year Two) when comments were repeated from October 9, 2007 (Tuesday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 5, Year One), when comments were repeated from June 1, 2006 (Thursday in the week of the Seventh Sunday of Easter, Year Two).

Matthew’s Gospel exhibits a pattern of grouping things together topically. The Sermon on the Mount (Mt. 5-7), for example, presents material which has parallels scattered throughout the Gospel of Luke; even so the Sermon on the Plain (Lk. 6:20-49) starts and ends like the Sermon on the Mount with similar topics and themes included. In Matthew, chapters 8 and 9, a series of events, including several miracles, follows the sequence of events in Mark, chapters 1 and 2, but adds similar events that have parallels elsewhere in Mark and/or Luke. See the separate file, Matthew 8-9 and Parallels. In recent comments, some note has been taken of the way Matthew groups events.

In Matthew’s account of the healing of the paralytic man, he includes fewer details than the parallel accounts in Mark and Luke. See the separate file The Paralytic. In particular, the setting is different. We are first informed that Jesus has returned from “the country of the Gadarenes” where he healed/exorcised two demoniacs (Mt. 8:28-34). “And after getting into a boat he crossed the sea and came to his own town” (Mt. 9:1). As J. Andrew Overman reminds us, his own town [would be] Capernaum, not Nazareth; see 4:13” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Mt. 9:1). In Mark and Luke, the healing of the paralytic (Mk. 2:1-12; cf. Lk. 5:17-26) follows the healing the Leper (Mk. 1:40-45; Lk. 5:12-16; cf. Mt. 8:1-4). Mark puts the healing of the paralytic “after some days”: “When he [i.e., Jesus] returned to Capernaum after some days, it was reported that he was at home” (Mk. 2:1). Luke gives an indefinite time reference that would allow for Mark’s “after some days.” “One day,” says Luke, while he [i.e., Jesus] was teaching, Pharisees and teachers of the law were sitting near by (the had come from every village of Galilee and Judea and from Jerusalem); and the power of the Lord was with him to heal” (Lk. 5:17). But Matthew’s timing is immediate. After reporting Jesus’ return to Capernaum (Mt. 9:1), “And just then,” says Matthew, “some people were carrying a paralyzed man lying on a bed” (Mt. 9:2a). In English, Luke’s version is similar, “Just then some men came, carrying a paralyzed man on a bed” (Lk. 5:18a), but the Greek, with a similar meaning, is rather different. Luke’s “men” (a[ndreV, andres) corresponds the third person plural verb ending of Matthew’s “were carrying” (prosevferon, proseferon). Matthew’s “to him,” with the prepositional prefix of the verb (pros-, pros-) and the pronoun aujtw:/ (autō(i) ) is understood but not stated by Luke until the end of the verse, where they “lay him before Jesus.” Even the man’s condition, clearly the same, is expressed differently. Matthew’s “paralyzed man” (paralutikovV, paralytikos) is described with a participial phrase, a[nqrwpon o}V h\n paralelumevnoV (anthrōpon hos ēn paralelumenos, “a man who was paralyzed”). Mark’s version shares elements with both Matthew and Luke. “Then some people [= the verb ending, cf. Mt.] came ( e[rcontai, erchontai; understood but not stated in Luke), bringing (fevronteV, ferontes = Lk., where it is translated “carrying”; contrast Matthew’s finite verb, prosevferon, proseferon, lit. “they were carrying). Only Mark tells us the man was “carried by four of them (aijrovmenon uJpo; tessavrwn, airomenon hypo tessarōn).

Matthew omits details about the crowd and the need to let the paralyzed man down through the roof. “And when they could not bring him to Jesus because of the crowd, they removed the roof above him; and after having dug through it, they let down the mat on which the paralytic lay” (Mk. 2:4). Luke follows Mark in reporting these details, but with some difference in the roofing materials. “They were trying to bring him in and lay him before Jesus; but finding no way to bring him in because of the crowd, they went up on the roof and let him down with his bed through the tiles into the middle of the crowd in front of Jesus” (Lk. 5:18b, 19). According to Richard A Horsley, “Houses often had a flat roof consisting of mud plaster over a wood framework” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Mk. 2:4). So in Mark, the men “dug through” the roof. Marion Lloyd Soards says, “through the tiles is Luke’s adjustment of Mark’s story to present a tiled roof” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Lk. 5:19).

Matthew proceeds immediately in reporting the healing. “When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, ‘Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven’ ” (Mt. 9:2b; cf. Mk. 2:5; Lk. 5:20). Because Jesus put it that way, referring to forgiveness rather than to healing, he is severely criticized. “Then,” says Matthew, “some of the scribes said to themselves, ‘This man is blaspheming’ ” (Mt. 9:3). This condenses Mark’s more elaborate version. “Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, ‘Why does this fellow speak in this way? It is blasphemy! Who can forgive sins but God alone?’ ” (Mk. 2:6-7; cf. Lk. 5:21). In Matthew and Mark, this represents the first opposition against Jesus by the Jewish leadership, though there has already been opposition from the demons (Mk. 1:23-26). In Luke’s narrative, at the synagogue in Nazareth (Lk. 4:16-30), Jesus is faced with opposition prior to the response to the healing of the paralytic (Lk. 5:17-26), but it is likely that Luke has moved the events at Nazareth forward (cf. Mk. 6:1-6; Mt. 13:53-58) as a programmatic beginning of Jesus’ public ministry. His account of the events at Nazareth is rather different from those of Mark and Matthew, but all describe opposition to Jesus in his home town, of which Jesus says, “Truly I tell you, no prophet is accepted in the prophet’s hometown” (Lk. 4:24; cf. Mk. 6:4; Mt. 13:57). Krister Stendahl observes that Matthew’s “story is, as usual, told in a stricter and more economic form [as compared to Mark’s version]” (Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, 1962, p. 781 on Mt. 9:1-8). He also notes that “this is the first clash between Jesus and Jewish authorities” (on v. 3), by which he refers to the “scribes” (Mt. 9:3; cf. Mk. 2:6; Lk. 5:21).

Jesus responds to the criticism in “their thoughts” (Mt.), or “hearts,” though also discussed (Mk.) or expressed openly (Lk.). “But Jesus, perceiving their thoughts,” says Matthew, “said, ‘Why do you think evil in your hearts? For which is easier, to say, “Your sins are forgiven,” or to say, “Stand up and walk”?’ ” (Mt. 9:4-5; cf. Mk. 2:8-9; Lk. 5:22-23). And Jesus then comes to what many regard as the point of the story, “ ‘But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins’–he then said to the paralytic–‘stand up, take your bed and go to your home’ ” (Mt. 9:6; cf. Mk. 2:10-11; Lk. 5:24). In his explanation of the phrase, “the Son of Man,” as not just “man,” Stendahl elaborates: “The Son of Man, whom you expect as the celestial being of the end, has already power to forgive sins now ‘here on earth’ ” (ibid.). The Synoptic Gospels all report the result, and the amazement of the crowd. “And he [i.e., the paralyzed man] stood up and went to his home. When the crowds saw it, they were filled with awe, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to human beings” (Mt. 9:7-8; cf. Mk. 2:12; Lk. 5:25-26).

Some events in the Gospels are called controversy stories, for example, when Jesus’ disciples plucked heads of grain on the sabbath and were challenged by the Pharisees (Mk. 2:23-28). Others are called miracle stories, for obvious reasons, but Jesus’ healing of the paralyzed man has been called a mixed form. In this instance, the issues of healing and forgiveness seem intertwined. The point is not that the paralysis was caused by sin–cf. John 9:3–but it’s certainly possible that they both troubled the man, and that Jesus combined both spiritual and physical healing.

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net