For the Lutheran Readings for today, and comments on them, see the Presbyterian Readings in the file for May 29, 2010, a week ago. These traditions differ in relating readings to the weeks following Pentecost.

Ecclesiastes 5:8-20

8 If you see in a province the oppression of the poor and the violation of justice and right, do not be amazed at the matter; for the high official is watched by a higher, and there are yet higher ones over them. 9 But all things considered, this is an advantage for a land: a king for a plowed field.

10 The lover of money will not be satisfied with money; nor the lover of wealth, with gain. This also is vanity.

11 When goods increase, those who eat them increase; and what gain has their owner but to see them with his eyes?

12 Sweet is the sleep of laborers, whether they eat little or much; but the surfeit of the rich will not let them sleep.

13 There is a grievous ill that I have seen under the sun: riches were kept by their owners to their hurt, 14 and those riches were lost in a bad venture; though they are parents of children, they have nothing in their hands. 15 As they came from their mother's womb, so they shall go again, naked as they came; they shall take nothing for their toil, which they may carry away with their hands. 16 This also is a grievous ill: just as they came, so shall they go; and what gain do they have from toiling for the wind? 17 Besides, all their days they eat in darkness, in much vexation and sickness and resentment.

18 This is what I have seen to be good: it is fitting to eat and drink and find enjoyment in all the toil with which one toils under the sun the few days of the life God gives us; for this is our lot. 19 Likewise all to whom God gives wealth and possessions and whom he enables to enjoy them, and to accept their lot and find enjoyment in their toil-this is the gift of God. 20 For they will scarcely brood over the days of their lives, because God keeps them occupied with the joy of their hearts. (Ecclesiastes 5:8-20, NRSV)

The following comments are repeated here from June 7, 2008 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 1, Year Two), when comments when comments were repeated with editing and supplement from June 10, 2006 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 1, Year Two, and the week of Pentecost Sunday in 2006).

Leong Seow defines Ecclesiastes 5:8-6:9–today’s reading plus most of tomorrow’s–as a unit that he entitles “Enjoy, but do not be greedy.” He says, “The passage is arranged in such a way that the outer sections lead toward its center in 5:20, with its call for enjoyment” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Eccl. 5:8-6:9). Although other outlines differ, for example that of Roland Murphy, for whom 4:17 [5:1]-6:9 is a unit, “Varia: Worship, Officials, Wealth and its Uncertainties” (Ecclesiastes, Word Biblical Commentary, 23A, 1992, pp. 44-56), there are traces of what Seow suggests. Biblical scholars often note an inverted symmetrical pattern called chiasm, because of the structure in the shape of the Greek letter chi ( C, cf. English X ), sometimes a simple a - b - b’ - a’ pattern, sometimes something more elaborate with several levels. In Seow’s section we find reference to “the poor” (5:8; 6:8), eating (5:11-12; 6:7), children (5:14) or “a stillborn child” (6:3); wealth (5:19; 6:2).

But other topics found here don’t have counterparts that fit the chiastic pattern, for example, the hierarchy of “high official[s]” found in Qoheleth’s first observation. “If you see in a province the oppression of the poor and the violation of justice and right, do not be amazed at the matter; for the high official is watched by a higher, and there are yet higher ones over them” (Eccl. 5:8). Of the term “high officials (lit ‘high ones’ [lf1m2 h01bog0!, gāvō ^ah mē‘al]),” Seow says it is “a term elsewhere used of arrogant people (Job 41:34; Ps. 138:6; Isa. 10:33; Ezek. 21:26) and never of officials of any sort.” And he adds, “no matter how high they get, however, there will always be people higher than they who look down upon them” (on Eccl. 5:8). The paragraph (as in the NRSV, NJPS, TNIV) includes another verse of uncertain meaning: “But all things considered, this is an advantage for a land: a king for a plowed field” (5:9 NRSV); “Thus the greatest advantage in all the land is his: he controls a field that is cultivated” (5:8 NJPS [= Heb. = v. 9 NRSV). NRSV text note g (on v. 9) says, “Meaning of Heb. uncertain.” NJPS text note e (on v. 8) says, “I.it., the high official profits from the labor of others; but meaning of verse uncertain). The variety of meanings found here is further illustrated by Today’s New International Version: “The increase from the land is taken by all; the king himself profits from the fields” (Eccl. 5:9 TNIV). Of the translations cited here, the NRSV is apparently the most literal, though all translations, of course, are to some extent, more or less, interpretive. But the NJPS, apparently reading j`lm (m-l-k) as a verb, “he rules/controls” (j`l1m!, mālak), rather than as a noun, “king” (j`l@m!, melek), and, with the Qumran ms., reading the pronoun xUh (hû’ [Qumran ms. Qere [‘read as’]), “he,” for xyh9, (hî’ MT [Massoretic Text, the traditional Jewish text] and Qumran ms. Kethiv [‘written text’), “she,” is also very literal given these text choices. Murphy, whose translation is also rather literal, “An advantage for a country in every way is this: a king for the tilled land” (op. cit., p. 44), says:

Any interpretation of this verse hinges on the translation, on which there is no consensus . . . Our translation may be interpreted thus: in the context of v. 7, the mention of a king seems to be a kind of corrective to the situation of villainous officials. His rule is seen as somehow an advantage for the farmers. How this is achieved, whether through stability or a better tax system, etc., is simply not stated (cf. N. Lohfink, Bib. 62 [1982] 535-43 for an attempt to spell out the situation in the Ptolemaic period). (op. cit., p. 51, on v. 8 [Heb.], 9).

Qoheleth continues with three brief observations. “The lover of money,” he says, “will not be satisfied with money; nor the lover of wealth, with gain. This also is vanity” (v. 10 NRSV). “Wealth itself is not the problem here,” says Leow, “but the insatiability of the rich (see Sir. 31:5-7)” (on v. 10). The next observation comments on the preceding. “When goods increase, those who eat them increase; and what gain has their owner but to see them with his eyes?” (v. 11). On this observation, Leow comments: “The rhetorical question presupposes a negative answer. Wealth is good only if it is enjoyed in the present” (on v. 11). In another observation the tranquillity of laborers (db2foh!, hā‘ōvēd), “slaves” in ancient versions (cf. BHS apparatus) is set in contrast to the sleeplessness of the rich (ryw9f!, ‘ā š î r): “Sweet is the sleep of laborers, whether they eat little or much; but the surfeit of the rich will not let them sleep” (v. 12). According to Leow, “the contrast is not between one who works and one who is a sluggard, but between poor laborers (or ‘employees’) and the rich who cannot stop worrying despite the plenty that they already possess (Sir. 31:1)” (on v 12).

Another problem for the rich is described. “There is a grievous ill that I have seen under the sun: riches were kept by their owners to their hurt, and those riches were lost in a bad venture; though they are parents of children, they have nothing in their hands” (vv. 13-14). The emphasis here is not so much on poor investment strategy, but rather on the very uncertainty of riches. Raymond C. Van Leeuwen, revised by Kent Harold Richards, describes “the uncertainty of wealth. Carefully guarded (kept [rUmw!, šāmûr], v. 13) riches are lost in a business venture gone bad” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Eccl. 5:13-17). This loss of wealth has long-term effects in the family. “As they came from their mother's womb, so they shall go again, naked as they came; they shall take nothing for their toil, which they may carry away with their hands. This also is a grievous ill: just as they came, so shall they go; and what gain do they have from toiling for the wind?” (vv. 15-16). “The heirs,” say Van Leeuwen and Richards, “like all humans, ‘come and go’ (see 1:3-4).” And they add that “naked [means] empty-handed (vv. 15-16; see Job 1:21)” (ibid.). And the result for the present generation is most unpleasant. “Besides, all their days they eat in darkness, in much vexation and sickness and resentment” (v. 17).

Peter Machinist describes the larger problem here: “The main focus, the futility of accumulating wealth, stands in deliberate contrast with 5:8 on the value of toil. Some of the earlier reasons for the futility (chs. 2, 4) are here resumed” (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, on Eccles. 5:9-16). And Machinist notes a further problem, “the particular problem of accumulating money 5:9: lit. ‘silver’ [‘kesef’]), which once acquired leaves one insatiable for more” (on v. 9). But a solution is offered. “It is fitting,” Qoheleth says, “to eat and drink and find enjoyment in all the toil with which one toils under the sun the few days of life God gives us” (v. 18). “All to whom God gives wealth and possessions and whom he enables to enjoy them, and to accept their lot and find enjoyment in their toil–this is the gift of God” (v. 19). Qoheleth adds, “For they will scarcely brood over the days of their lives, because God keeps them occupied with the joy of their hearts” (v. 20). Machinist puts this in contrast to the earlier problem:

The contrasting solution, namely, the value of toil, is here reintroduced. As elsewhere in Koheleth (2:24-25; 3:12-13; 8:15; 9:7, 9; cf. 3:22; 11:8), it is God who is said to preside over the whole matter. But now the focus is on God’s grant of the power to enjoy wealth and goods and the toil presumably associated with them, without worry about where it will lead or how much is to be accumulated. Some medieval commentators (e.g., Rashi and Sforno) added that God’s gift of enjoyment is for those who earn it by meritorious deeds, and who would enjoy the blessing of their deeds not only on earth, but finally in the afterlife.” (Machinist, on Eccles. 5:11, 17-20)

Galatians 3:23-4:11

23 Now before faith came, we were imprisoned and guarded under the law until faith would be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our disciplinarian until Christ came, so that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith. 27 As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to the promise.

4:1 My point is this: heirs, as long as they are minors, are no better than slaves, though they are the owners of all the property; 2 but they remain under guardians and trustees until the date set by the father. 3 So with us; while we were minors, we were enslaved to the elemental spirits of the world. 4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 in order to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as children. 6 And because you are children, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!" 7 So you are no longer a slave but a child, and if a child then also an heir, through God.

Paul Reproves the Galatians

8 Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to beings that by nature are not gods. 9 Now, however, that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and beggarly elemental spirits? How can you want to be enslaved to them again? 10 You are observing special days, and months, and seasons, and years. 11 I am afraid that my work for you may have been wasted. (Galatians 3:23-4:11, NRSV)

The following comments are based on those on Galatians 3:23-4:7 of December 24, 2009 (Thursday in the week of the Fourth Sunday of Advent, Year Two), when comments were based on earlier comments of January 31 and February 2, 2009 (Saturday in the week of the Third Sunday after the Epiphany and Monday in the week of the Fourth Sunday after the Epiphany, Year One), when comments on Galatians 3:23-29 and 4:1-11 were based on earlier comments, for example, those of January 27, 2007 (Saturday in the week of the Third Sunday after the Epiphany, Year One), of August 26, 2007 (the Sunday closest to August 24, Year One), of December 24, 2007 (the Presbyterian reading), of June 7, 2008 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 1, Year Two), and of earlier comments as noted on those occasions.

The discussion of salvation (justification) through faith in Christ rather than through works of the law continues. “Now before faith came,” says Paul, “we were imprisoned and guarded under the law until faith would be revealed. Therefore the law was our disciplinarian (paidagwgovV (paidagōgos) until Christ came, so that we might be justified by faith” (Gal. 3:23-24). In Galatians 3:24, the word paidagwgovV (paidagōgos), formerly translated as “schoolmaster” (AV/KJV), is now translated as “disciplinarian” (NRSV), “guardian” (New Century Version) or “a kind of tutor in charge of us (NEB), in recognition of the fact that in the ancient world the paidagwgovV (paidagōgos) was a household slave with responsibility for the child. He was to bring the child to the teacher, but he was not the teacher himself. The original meaning of the Greek word paidagwgovV (paidagōgos) was “ ‘boy-leader,’ the man, usually a slave, whose duty it was to conduct a boy or youth to and from school and to superintend his conduct; generally he was not a ‘teacher.’ When the young man became of age, the paidagwgovV (paidagōgos) was no longer needed. In our literature [i.e. mainly, the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers] [it means] one who has responsibility for someone who needs guidance, guardian, leader, guide” (Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich [BDAG], A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3^rd ed., 2000, s.v. paidagwgovV, paidagōgos). Today’s New International Version substitutes a verbal expression here: “So the law was put in charge of us until Christ came that we might be justified by faith” (Gal. 3:24 TNIV).

The Rabbinical tradition about the “men of the great assembly” who received Torah from Moses and Joshua through the elders and prophets begins with three instructions, including “Make a fence for the Torah” (M. Abot 1:1, ed. J. Neusner). Rabbi Aqiba, a famed scholar, mystic and martyr (put to death by the Romans in 135 C.E.), is cited later in Mishnah Abot (3:13):

(1) “Laughter and lightheadedness turn lewdness into a habit.

(2) “Tradition is a fence for the Torah.

(3) “Tithes are a fence for wealth.

(4) “Vows are a fence for abstinence.

(5) “A fence for wisdom is silence.”

The notion of the fence around the law was seen as a positive thing:

Now our Lawgiver [i.e. Moses] being a wise man . . . fenced us round with impregnable ramparts and walls of iron, that we might not mingle at all with any of the other nations, but remain pure in body and soul, free from all vain imaginations, worshiping the one Almighty God above the whole creation” (Epistle of Aristeas, 139, cited by H. D. Betz, Galatians, 1979, p. 165).

Paul’s view of the law, on the other hand, though he calls it “holy, just and good” (Rom. 7:12), and “spiritual” (Rom. 7:14), presents a rather negative view here in Galatians, as noted above. “For Paul himself,” says Betz, “the Jewish Torah plays a limited ‘positive’ role in God’s redemptive work. Neither the Torah itself nor the angels which gave it are evil. But the Torah of Moses is inferior to the promise of Abraham” (ibid., 169). Nevertheless, one should not conclude that Paul is in favor of sin, the “works of the flesh,” which he warns against in 5:19-21.

“But now that faith has come,” says Paul, “we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian (paidagwgovV, paidagōgos)” (v. 25). The point is that “in Christ [we] are all children of God through faith” (v. 26), which applies to Jews like Peter and Paul (2:15-16) or Gentiles like most of Paul’s converts at Galatia (and like most of us). “As many of you as were baptized into Christ,” adds Paul, “have clothed yourselves with Christ” (v. 27). For some, this is clearly a reference to baptism with water as a sign of one’s inner cleansing and conversion to Christian faith, G. N. Stanton says that “several scholars conclude that Paul is here citing an early baptismal liturgy. The person who is about to be baptized removes clothing, symbolizing the old order, and in baptism is clothed with Christ” (The Oxford Bible Commentary, 2001, p. 1160, on Gal. 3:27-28). Another view, held by Quakers, is that baptism is an inward and spiritual experience. Robert Barclay’s “Proposition 12” includes the following:

Just as there is ‘one Lord, and one faith,’ so is there ‘one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5), which is not ‘a removal of dirt from the body but . . . an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ’ (1 Pet. 3:21 RSV). This baptism is a pure and spiritual thing (Gal. 3:27), namely the baptism of the Spirit and of fire, by which we are ‘buried with him’ (Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:12) so that being washed and purged of our sins, we may ‘walk in newness of life’ (Rom. 6:4). (Barclay’s Apology in Modern English, 1967; Newberg, OR: Barclay Press, 1991, pp. 10, 301, cf. pp. 301-326)

This Quaker view may be set in contrast with the view that has been called “baptismal regeneration.” According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 1263, “By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin. In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam's sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is separation from God” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 1263, on the Internet at http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1263.htm, accessed again June 4, 2010). Mark J. Bonocore offers a vigorous defense of the doctrine of “baptismal regeneration,” and concludes by saying, “So, according to the Scriptures, Baptism is regenerational, sacramental, and intrinsic to one's acceptance of Christ. For, as the Lord says, it cannot be otherwise” ( “Baptismal Regeneration,” on the Internet at http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a25.htm, accessed again June 4, 2010). A sermon of Charles Spurgeon criticizes the doctrine of “Baptismal Regeneration”: “I find that the great error which we have to contend with throughout England (and it is growing more and more), is one in direct opposition to my text, well known to you as the doctrine of baptismal regeneration” (A Sermon, (No. 573), Delivered on Sunday Morning, June 5th, 1864, by the Rev. C. H. SPURGEON, At the Metropolitan Tabernacle, Newington, “Baptismal Regeneration,”The Spurgeon Archive, Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, on the Internet at http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0573.htm, accessed again June 4, 2010).

Many Christians hold to a mediating view, understanding baptism as “an outward sign of an inward work of grace.” According to George Allen Turner (of Asbury Theological Seminary),

Luther was an Augustinian monk and his policy was to retain practices of the Catholic Church unless the Scripture specifically forbade them. Luther, in 1518, believed that the infant was regenerated at baptism through the merit of the faith of its sponsors. But in 1520, he believed that in baptism the infants themselves believed. After 1528, Luther retained this belief, but based it upon such texts as Matthew 28:19 and Mark 10:14. Since Luther accepted the Augustinian belief that baptism removed Original Guilt, he also accepted the Augustinian belief that baptism removed Original Guilt in infants. But Zwingli believed baptism was the outward sign of an inward work of grace. As applied to infants, it was true only "in virtue of God's promise that the children of Christian parents are as much members of the Christian church as Jewish children were members of the Jewish church.(16) In other words, the validity of infant baptism for the Christian rests on the analogy of the Old Testament. With Calvin, John 3:5 was not to be interpreted literally any more than Matthew 3:11. In other words, water is no more necessary than fire to make the new birth effective. (“Infant Baptism in Biblical and Historical Context,” Wesleyan Theological Journal, Vol. 5, Spring, 1970, pp. 11-22, online at the Wesley Center Online, http://wesley.nnu.edu/wesleyan_theology/wesleyjournal/1970-wtj-05.pdf, accessed again June 4, 2010)

But Paul moves on to a fundamental principle in his understanding of the Christian community. If through spiritual baptism, however understood in relation to water baptism, we have clothed ourselves with Christ (Gal. 3:27), then “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus” (v. 28). Paul states a fundamental principle of unity and equality in the Christian community in terms of race, station in life (e.g. slave or free), and gender. The two or three Pauline statements in the New Testament used by some to promote the subordination of women to men and deny some roles to women merely on the basis of their gender (e.g. 1 Tim. 2:12) should be understood as specific instructions limited to specific situations and not generalized as universal principles on a level with the equality proclaimed in Galatians 3:28. Some of this advice, to women, for example, is no more a universal principle than the similar advice to slaves. It was an accommodation to cultural expectations in a time of potential persecution that would bring danger to the whole church. “And if you belong to Christ,” says Paul, “then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise” (v. 29).

Paul continues to compare being under the law to being in Christ. “My point is this: heirs, as long as they are minors, are no better than slaves, though they are the owners of all the property; but they remain under guardians and trustees until the date set by the father” (Gal. 4:1-2). Being under the law is being under “guardians [ejpivtropoi, epitropoi] and trustees [oijkonovmoi, oikonomoi]” (Gal. 4:2) (cf. “disciplinarian,” paidagwgovV, paidagōgos, 3:24). “Minors,” says Sheila Briggs, “like other members of a Roman family other than the father, had few rights” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Gal. 4:1).

As Paul continues, a new perspective appears. One of the issues has been whether to circumcise Gentile believers like Titus (Gal. 2:3), but the enslavement discussed in chapter 4 is to “the elemental spirits of the world” (Gal. 4:3), according to Bruce M. Metzger and John Reumann, “cosmic powers controlling the universe (4:8); or the rudiments of the world (earth, air, fire, water), or rudimentary rules and religious observances (vv. 9-10; Col. 2:8, 20)” (NOAB, 2^nd ed., 1994, on Gal. 4:3). When this is explained further, “when you did not know God, you were enslaved to beings that by nature are not gods” (v. 8), Paul seems to refer to worship of pagan gods. Are these the people “under the law” whom Christ came to redeem (vv. 4-5)? They must have been Gentiles who have come under some Jewish influence. “You are observing special days, and months, and seasons, and years” (v. 10). According to Ronald Y. K. Fung, “The issue, then, is ‘not the observation of religious usages as such . . . but the basis of the justification before God’; the legalistic approach advocated by the Galatian agitators and the gospel of free grace proclaimed by Paul are irreconcilably opposed to each other” (The Epistle to the Galatians, NICNT, 1988, p. 194 on Gal. 4:11, citing H. N. Ridderbos).

Galatians 4:1-7, says Fung, is “elaboration of . . . the preceding verses (3:23-29)” (ibid., p. 179). In the paragraph the image of being under the law gradually changes from minor children (Gal. 4:3) to slavery (v. 7a). The transition for the readers is from being “minors, no better than slaves” (v. 1) to children and heirs of God (v. 7b). The remedy, the basis for this transition, begins with the coming of Christ. “But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law” (v. 4). According to Briggs, “born of a woman, born under the law stresses Jesus’ human and Jewish birth, seen by Paul as the enslaved human condition, in contrast to the freedom Christ brings to those adopted as God’s children” (op. cit., on v. 4). The redemption through Christ, the purpose of his coming, is “in order to i{na (hina) redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption (uiJoqesiva, huiothesia) as children” (v. 5). The term uiJoqesiva (huiothesia), a compound of uiJovV (huios), “son,” and qevsiV (thesis), “placing” is “a legal technical term of ‘adoption’ of children [which] in our literature, i.e. in Paul, [is] only [used] in a transferred sense of a transcendent filial relationship between God and humans (with the legal aspect, not gender specificity, as major semantic component” (BDAG, s.v. uiJoqesiva, huiothesia). In this sense, the lexicon cites Gal. 4:5; Eph. 1:5; Rom. 8:15, where “pneu:ma uiJoqesivaV [pneuma huiothesias, ‘spirit of adoption’] . . . [is] opposed [to] pneu:ma douleivaV [pneuma douleias. ‘spirit of slavery’] = such a spirit as is possessed by a slave, not by the son of the house” (ibid.). Whereas, we were formerly children and heirs of limited status, “no better than slaves” (v. 1), we are now children and heirs of quality status. “And because you are children, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father (Abba oJ pathvr, Abba ho patēr)!” (v. 6; cf. Mk. 14:36; Rom. 8:15). Abba is “Aramaic for Father,” NRSV text note e). “So,” explains Paul, “you are no longer a slave but a child, and if a child then also an heir, through God” (v. 7).

It might appear that we are back where we started, because at the beginning of the paragraph we are legal minors who do not inherit “until the date set by the father” (v. 2). Fung explains:

We have consistently understood the references to the status of sons in [4:5-7] in the sense of full-grown sonship, because this appears to be the sense required by Paul’s argument in 3:26, and it is reasonable to suppose that this is also the sense intended in the present passage . . . While the main idea in the human analogy is that of an heir who is underage, in his application of it Paul has combined two metaphors (v. 3, “During our minority we were slaves . . .”) so that, instead of saying simply “When the fulness of time arrived, God sent forth his Son . . . in order that we might come of age,” he says “. . . in order that we might receive adoption as sons–and full-grown sons at that”–thus weaving together the idea of “becoming an adopted son from a slave” and that of “the heir coming of age.” (op. cit., p. 186, on Gal. 4:7)

The next paragraph of today’s reading describes a relapse into observance of “special days, and months, and seasons, and years” (v. 10)–presumably as the basis for salvation–as a return to enslavement (vv. 8-9). This relapse is described as turning back again “to the weak and beggarly elemental spirits” (stoicheia, v. 9, cf. v. 3). The New International Version translates the phrase as “to those weak and miserable principles” (Gal 4:9 NIV). In revision, Today’s New International Version has “to those weak and miserable forces [note h: Or principles].” Fung, while noting that these alternative understandings are “keenly debated,” offers “a third option”:

which seems to do justice to the facts of the case, including (a) the linguistic consideration that “if stoicheion in Galatians and Colossians is to be understood in the light of usage outside the NT, the most obvious sense is ‘element,’” [citing G. Delling] and (b) the contextual consideration that Paul affirms a certain identification of Judaism and paganism as alike being forms of service to the stoicheia [citing B. Reicke]. . . . Paul includes in the stoicheia of the world “on the one side the Torah with its statutes (4:3-5 . . .), and then on the other side the world of false gods whom the recipients [of his letter] once served, 4:8f.” [citing G. Delling]. On this understanding, the elements of the world can “cover all the things in which man places his trust apart from the living God revealed in Christ; they become his gods, and he becomes their slave” [citing H. -H. Easer]. . . . for the readers to submit to the demands of the Judaizers would represent a relapse [to the enslavement they once endured in paganism]. (Fung, pp. 191-192, on Gal. 4:9, with ref. to vv. 8-11)

Later Paul adds, “For freedom Christ has set us free. Stand firm, therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery” (5:1).

Matthew 15:1-20

The Tradition of the Elders (Mk 7.1-13)

15:1 Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, 2 "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands before they eat." 3 He answered them, "And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'Whoever speaks evil of father or mother must surely die.' 5 But you say that whoever tells father or mother, 'Whatever support you might have had from me is given to God,' then that person need not honor the father. 6 So, for the sake of your tradition, you make void the word of God. 7 You hypocrites! Isaiah prophesied rightly about you when he said:

8 'This people honors me with their lips,

but their hearts are far from me;

9 in vain do they worship me,

teaching human precepts as doctrines.' " (Matthew 15:1-9, NRSV)

Things That Defile 1(Mk 7.14-23)

10 Then he called the crowd to him and said to them, "Listen and understand: 11 it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but it is what comes out of the mouth that defiles." 12 Then the disciples approached and said to him, "Do you know that the Pharisees took offense when they heard what you said?" 13 He answered, "Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted. 14 Let them alone; they are blind guides of the blind. And if one blind person guides another, both will fall into a pit." 15 But Peter said to him, "Explain this parable to us." 16 Then he said, "Are you also still without understanding? 17 Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth enters the stomach, and goes out into the sewer? 18 But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this is what defiles. 19 For out of the heart come evil intentions, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. 20 These are what defile a person, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile." (Matthew 15:10-20, NRSV)

The following comments are repeated here from November 9, 2009 (Monday in the week of the Sunday closest to November 9, Year One), when comments were repeated from June 7, 2008 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 1, Year Two), when comments were repeated from November 12, 2007 (Monday in the week of the Sunday closest to November 9, Year One), when they were repeated with editing and supplement from June 10, 2006 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to June One, Year Two), when they were combined with some revision from June 5, 2004 (Saturday of the week of Pentecost, Year Two) in an email sent June 2, 2004 for June 3-6), and from November 7, 2005 (Monday of the week of the Twenty-Fifth Sunday after Pentecost, Year One). This reading from Matthew has a close parallel in Mark, but only limited echoes in Luke. For parallel passages, see the separate file, Defilement - Traditional and Real. For recent comments from the perspective of Mark’s version, see the Archive for March 13, 2010 (Saturday in the week of the Third Sunday of Lent, Year Two).

Matthew and Mark begin by telling us that Pharisees and scribes have come to Jesus from Jerusalem (Mt. 15:1; Mk. 7:1). Compare the setting in Luke when Jesus is invited to dine with a Pharisee (Lk. 11:37). In Matthew, the question to Jesus is direct. “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands before they eat” (Mt. 15:2). Before Mark presents the question, he tells us that the Pharisees and scribes notice “that some of his [i.e., Jesus’] disciples were eating with defiled hands, that is, without washing them” (Mk. 7:2; cf. the amazement reported by Luke 11:38). Mark’s form of the question, “Why do your disciples not live according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?” (Mk. 7:5), is preceded by a parenthetical explanation of the question from the Pharisees and scribes (Mk. 7:1):

For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, do not eat unless they thoroughly wash their hands, thus observing the tradition of the elders; and they do not eat anything from the market unless they wash it, and there are also many other traditions that they observe, the washing of cups, pots, and bronze kettles. (Mark 7:3-4, NRSV)

The need for this explanation suggests the difference between Mark’s Gentile readership (audience) and Matthew’s, which is at least in close proximity to Jewish culture. According to J. Andrew Overman, Matthew and Mark refer to “the tradition of the elders” (Mt. 15:2; Mk. 7:5), that is, “regulations not found in the written Torah (Josephus, Ant. 13.297)” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Mt. 15:2). These would be the interpretations of biblical commandments given by rabbis in Jesus’ time. Matthew (15:8, 9) and Mark (Mk. 7:6-7) both quote Isaiah 29:13 in the Septuagint version (cf. K. Aland and others, The Greek New Testament, 3^rd ed., 1975, note on Mt. 15:8-9, and Overman, op. cit., on vv. 8-9), but in Matthew this follows the charge of breaking the Fifth Commandment (Mt. 15:4-6), whereas Mark’s Isaiah quotation precedes the charge of breaking the Fifth Commandment (Mk. 7:8-13), and includes korba:n (korban), the Hebrew or Aramaic word for “offering” (v. 11, cf. NBAr4qA, qorbān, Heb. and NBar4qA, xnABAr4qA, qorban, qorbānā’, Aramaic). According to Richard A. Horsley, “Jesus focuses the dispute in concrete economic terms on the commandment of God concerning Honor your father and your mother (cf. Ex. 20:12; 21:17), which includes economic support in their declining years. He claims that the Pharisees make it void with their tradition of Corban, encouraging people to dedicate the produce of their land to the Jerusalem Temple–thus siphoning off produce that otherwise could have been used to support parents” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Mk. 7:9-13).

Only Matthew relates the Disciples’ report to Jesus, asking, “Do you know that the Pharisees took offense when they heard what you said?” (Mt. 15:12), which introduces a saying (v. 13) that alludes to Isaiah 60:21, “They [your people] are the shoot that I planted, the work of my hands,” and a saying about “blind guides” (v. 14; cf. Lk. 6:39). Jesus is asked what he means by “his disciples” (Mk. 7:17), or specifically by “Peter” (Mt. 15:15), and responds by emphasizing “what comes out of the mouth” as the source of defilement (v. 18; cf. Mk. 7:20), not “whatever goes into the mouth” (Mt. 15:17; cf. Mk. 7:18). What comes out is then defined as a stream of evil: “evil intentions, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander” (Mt. 15:19; cf. Mk. 7:21-22). In this passage “the tradition of the elders” (Mt. 15:2), or “your tradition” (3, 6) is set in contrast with “the commandment of God” (vv. 3, 4) or “the word of God” (v. 6). Mark’s version (Mk. 7:1-23) has the same contrast, “tradition of the elders” (Mk. 7:3, 5) or “traditions” (v. 4), or “human tradition” (v. 8), or “your tradition” (v. 13) versus “the commandment of God” (vv. 8, 9), or “word of God’ (v. 13). C. G. Montefiore, who wrote a commentary on the Synoptic Gospels from the Jewish perspective, notes that Matthew emphasizes “the divineness of the Pentateuchal Law (not merely of the Decalogue, for Exodus xxi. 17 is cited as well as xx. 12)” (The Synoptic Gospels, The Library of Biblical Studies, vol. 2, 1968, p. 223 on Mt., chap. 15.) He notes that Matthew stresses this divineness “by the substitution of ‘God’ for ‘Moses’ in [verse] 4.” “For God said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’ [Ex. 20:12; Deut. 5:16] and, ‘Whoever speaks evil of father or mother must surely die’ ” (Mt. 15:4, citing Ex. 21:17; cf. Lev. 20:9). Montefiore discusses the problem of using later evidence (Mishnah, Talmud) to understand what the Gospels say about the Pharisees (for which he has been criticized–unjustly, he thinks). He says, “I have said, and I repeat, that Jesus put his finger upon the dangers of Rabbinic religion and of ‘legalism.’ There were doubtless some ‘formalists’ in the Rabbis of his time, some Rabbis who cleansed the outside of the cup and left the inside dirty, some Rabbis who neglected ‘mercy,’ but were, nevertheless, sanctimonious and self-righteous” (p. 225). But he adds that “We must always use the Gospel evidence as regards Pharisaism with great caution, because it is the product of antagonists” (ibid.). I would agree that what Jesus said applies to some (but not all) Pharisees of his time. Montefiore has other objections, but his comments on verse 18 (Mt. 15:18) are noteworthy.

This verse puts the point clearly. But the opposition between ‘into the mouth’ and ‘from the mouth’ carries the redactor [i.e. editor of Matthew’s Gospel, following a Protestant scholar] too far. For what comes ‘from the man’ (so Mark) is wider than what comes ‘from the mouth.’ Yet though Matthew throughout presses ‘from the mouth’ instead of the more general ‘from the man,’ he includes in his catalogue of sins many which do not literally proceed from the mouth, though they do proceed from the man. To eat with unwashed hands is no ‘sin of the heart,’ and therefore cannot defile. (p. 224, on Mt. 15:18)

The Rabbinical traditions later compiled in the Mishnah included a major section entitled “Purities” (compare Aaron Rothkoff, “Tohorot,” Encyclopaedia Judaica, 2008, on the Internet at the Jewish Virtual Library, at

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0020_0_19914.html, accessed again June 4, 2010). Jesus apparently took note of an obsession with ritual purity on the part of some Pharisees. “The attitude of Jesus is not that such observances are wrong, but that they are receiving a disproportionate attention, to the neglect of things which really matter” ( R. McL. Wilson, Peake's Commentary on the Bible, 1962, reprint 1972, sec. 703 a, p. 807, on Mk. 7:1-23).

For the Lutheran Readings for today, and comments on them, see the Presbyterian Readings in the file for May 29, 2010, a week ago. These traditions differ in relating readings to the weeks following Pentecost.

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net