2 Kings 23:36-24:17

Jehoiakim (cf. (2 Chr 36.5-8)

36 Jehoiakim was twenty-five years old when he began to reign; he reigned eleven years in Jerusalem. His mother's name was Zebidah daughter of Pedaiah of Rumah. 37 He did what was evil in the sight of the LORD, just as all his ancestors had done.

24:1 In his days King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon came up; Jehoiakim became his servant for three years; then he turned and rebelled against him. 2 The LORD sent against him bands of the Chaldeans, bands of the Arameans, bands of the Moabites, and bands of the Ammonites; he sent them against Judah to destroy it, according to the word of the LORD that he spoke by his servants the prophets. 3 Surely this came upon Judah at the command of the LORD, to remove them out of his sight, for the sins of Manasseh, for all that he had committed, 4 and also for the innocent blood that he had shed; for he filled Jerusalem with innocent blood, and the LORD was not willing to pardon. 5 Now the rest of the deeds of Jehoiakim, and all that he did, are they not written in the Book of the Annals of the Kings of Judah? 6 So Jehoiakim slept with his ancestors; then his son Jehoiachin succeeded him. 7 The king of Egypt did not come again out of his land, for the king of Babylon had taken over all that belonged to the king of Egypt from the Wadi of Egypt to the River Euphrates.

Jehoiachin (cf. 2 Chr 36.9-10)

8 Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign; he reigned three months in Jerusalem. His mother's name was Nehushta daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem. 9 He did what was evil in the sight of the LORD, just as his father had done.

10 At that time the servants of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon came up to Jerusalem, and the city was besieged. 11 King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon came to the city, while his servants were besieging it; 12 King Jehoiachin of Judah gave himself up to the king of Babylon, himself, his mother, his servants, his officers, and his palace officials. The king of Babylon took him prisoner in the eighth year of his reign.

13 He carried off all the treasures of the house of the LORD, and the treasures of the king's house; he cut in pieces all the vessels of gold in the temple of the LORD, which King Solomon of Israel had made, all this as the LORD had foretold. 14 He carried away all Jerusalem, all the officials, all the warriors, ten thousand captives, all the artisans and the smiths; no one remained, except the poorest people of the land. 15 He carried away Jehoiachin to Babylon; the king's mother, the king's wives, his officials, and the elite of the land, he took into captivity from Jerusalem to Babylon. 16 The king of Babylon brought captive to Babylon all the men of valor, seven thousand, the artisans and the smiths, one thousand, all of them strong and fit for war. 17 The king of Babylon made Mattaniah, Jehoiachin's uncle, king in his place, and changed his name to Zedekiah. (2 Kings 23:36-24:17, NRSV)

The following comments are repeated here from October 7, 2005 (Friday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 5, Year One):

After the death of Josiah (2 Kgs. 23:29-30), at the hand of Pharaoh Neco (v. 29), Jehoahaz reigned three months (v. 31) but was deposed by Neco (vv. 33-34). Jehoiakim, installed by Neco (v. 34), reigned eleven years, but soon came under the control of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon (2 Kgs. 24:1, cf. v. 7). The writers blame Jehoiakim for doing “what was evil in the sight of the LORD, just as all his ancestors had done” (23:37), but given the fact that he was first controlled by Pharaoh Neco and then by King Nebuchadnezzar, he apparently had little choice in the matter of taxation–certainly unpopular–to pay tribute to Pharaoh (23:35) and then to Nebuchadnezzar (24:1).. His attempt to withhold the tribute brought on Nebuchadnezzar’s assault (24:2), which the writers especially blame on “the sins of Manasseh” (v. 3, cf. v.4).

Jehoiachin also had a short reign of three months (v. 8), brought to an end by Nebuchadnezzar’s assault and first siege of Jerusalem (vv. 10-12). But Jehoiachin was not killed; rather he was taken captive to Babylon (vv. 12, 15), and eventually released from prison (25:27). Later hopes of restoring the Davidic kings to power focused on his descendant Zerubbabel (Hag. 1:1; Zech. 4:6; cf. Mt. 1:11-12 [“Jechoniah” = “Jehoiachin”]). Jehoiachin’s uncle, Mattaniah, renamed Zedekiah, was made “king” to rule over the rubble (2 Kgs. 24:17).

The devastation of Jerusalem by Babylon is presented as punishment for Judah’s sin, in particular, the sin of idolatry promoted by the kings. While Manasseh, whose reign preceded Josiah’s reforms, is singled out as especially wicked (2 Kgs. 24:3-4), almost all of the kings are implicated. Josiah’s reforms were too little too late. Chapter 17 of 2 Kings explains in detail why Assyria’s destruction of the northern Kingdom of Israel was punishment for continued and persistent idolatry (“This occurred because . . .” 2 Kgs. 17:7-18), and continues by saying that Judah did the same: “Judah also did not keep the commandments of the LORD their God but walked in the customs that Israel had introduced” (17:19).

1 Corinthians 12:12-26

One Body with Many Members

12 For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For in the one Spirit we were all baptized into one body-Jews or Greeks, slaves or free-and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.

14 Indeed, the body does not consist of one member but of many. 15 If the foot would say, "Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body," that would not make it any less a part of the body. 16 And if the ear would say, "Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body," that would not make it any less a part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole body were hearing, where would the sense of smell be? 18 But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. 19 If all were a single member, where would the body be? 20 As it is, there are many members, yet one body. 21 The eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you," nor again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you." 22 On the contrary, the members of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23 and those members of the body that we think less honorable we clothe with greater honor, and our less respectable members are treated with greater respect; 24 whereas our more respectable members do not need this. But God has so arranged the body, giving the greater honor to the inferior member, 25 that there may be no dissension within the body, but the members may have the same care for one another. 26 If one member suffers, all suffer together with it; if one member is honored, all rejoice together with it. (1 Corinthians 12:12-16, NRSV)

The following comments are repeated here from March 30, 2006 (Thursday in the week of the Fourth Sunday of Lent, Year Two):

Having listed examples of the gifts of the spirit (1 Cor. 12:4-10; cf. 28-30), Paul explains the need for mutual assistance and cooperation within the Christian community on the analogy of the way various “members” of the physical body work together for the good of the whole. There should be “no dissension within the body” (v. 15). “If one member suffers, all suffer together with it; if one member is honored, all rejoice together with it” (v. 26). The use of the body as a metaphor of the larger society has had a long history. Plato says, "But we further agreed that this unity is the greatest blessing for a state, and we compared a well governed state to the human body in its relation to the pleasure and pain of its parts" (Republic, Book V, 464b). Ben Witherington III notes the use of this metaphor by M. Agrippa,

who draws an analogy between the state and the human body in which the body’s members or parts represent the quarreling parties or factions in the state. With this analogy he exhorts the revolting plebeians to cease their strife and be united with the patricians, submitting to their authority . . . This deliberative argument against sedition speaks of a revolt of the hands, mouth, and feet against the stomach, which weakens the whole body. (Witherington, Conflict & Community in Corinth, pp. 253-254, on 1 Cor. 12:1-13:1)

Witherington finds that “Paul’s use of the argument moves in precisely the opposite direction.”

He urges the strong (probably the well-to-do) to give more honor and respect to the weak, and so cease their factious behavior. It is the “more respectable members” (v. 24) to whom this argument is directed, since it is they who might be tempted to say to the weak “I have no need of you. It was apparently the “respectable” who were enamored with the gifts of prophecy and tongues and were using them in self-serving ways in worship services. (p. 254).

Paul explains the need for mutual assistance and cooperation within the Christian community on the analogy of the way various “members” of the physical body work together for the good of the whole. There should be “no dissension within the body” (v. 15). “If one member suffers, all suffer together with it; if one member is honored, all rejoice together with it” (v. 26).

Matthew 9:27-34

Two Blind Men (Mt. 9:27:31; cf. 20:29-34; Mk. 10:46-52; Lk. 18:35-43)

27 As Jesus went on from there, two blind men followed him, crying loudly, "Have mercy on us, Son of David!" 28 When he entered the house, the blind men came to him; and Jesus said to them, "Do you believe that I am able to do this?" They said to him, "Yes, Lord." 29 Then he touched their eyes and said, "According to your faith let it be done to you." 30 And their eyes were opened. Then Jesus sternly ordered them, "See that no one knows of this." 31 But they went away and spread the news about him throughout that district.

A Mute Demoniac (Mt. 9:32-34; cf. 12:22-24; Mk. 3:22; Lk 11:14-15; Jn. 7:20; 10:20; 8:48, 52)

32 After they had gone away, a demoniac who was mute was brought to him. 33 And when the demon had been cast out, the one who had been mute spoke; and the crowds were amazed and said, "Never has anything like this been seen in Israel." 34 But the Pharisees said, "By the ruler of the demons he casts out the demons." (Matthew 9:27-34, NRSV)

The following comments are repeated here from October 7, 2005 (Friday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 5, Year One). Comments on the parallel account in Mark 10:46-52 are available in the Archive for August 12, 2007 (Friday in the week of the Sunday closest to August 10, Year One). Comments on the parallel account in Luke 18:31-43 are available in the Archive for November 28, 2006 (Tuesday in the week of the Sunday closest to November 23, Year Two):

On June 30, 2006 (Friday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 22, Year Two), comments were combined and revised from June 25, 2004, in an email sent June 24, 2004, for June 24 and June 25, and from November 26, 2005 (Saturday of the week of the Twenty-Seventh Sunday after Pentecost, Year One):

Jesus heals two blind men in this passage (Mt. 20:29-34), and does the same in an earlier account (Mt. 9:27-31). The account in Matthew 20 has parallel accounts in Mark (Mk. 10:46-52) and Luke (Lk. 18:35-43). These two parallel accounts occur in sequence with Matthew’s account, but differ in mentioning only one blind man who is healed. Perhaps Bartimaeus was the most memorable case. Mark gives his name, Bartimaeus, “son of Timaeus,” as Mark translates his Aramaic name. It is remarkable that, though Jesus had "set his face to go to Jerusalem" (Lk. 9:51; cf. Mt. 20:28, "the Son of Man came  . . . to give his life a ransom for many"), he would take time for this healing. We have the right to believe that he is not too busy, or too preoccupied, to deal with our lives, our anxieties and concerns, and our hopes and plans. For Luke, the healing occurred as Jesus and his disciples were entering Jericho (Lk. 18:15), but for Matthew and Mark, it happened as they were leaving Jericho (Mt. 20:29; Mk. 10:46). The cry for help is essentially the same in each account, with allowance for the two in Matthew’s accounts. “Have mercy on us, Son of David!” (Mt. 20:30; 9:27), or “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!” (Mk. 10:45; Lk. 18:38). The crowd attempts to silence these cries for help (Mt. 20:31; Mk. 10:48; Lk. 18:39), but fails in that attempt. Jesus responds, “What do you want me to do for you?” (The English translations are identical, but the Greek word for “you” is plural in Mt. 20:32, but singular in Mk. 10:51 and Lk. 18:41, which agrees with the accounts respectively.) They said, "Lord, let our eyes be opened" (v. 33). And when he touched their eyes, "Immediately they regained their sight and followed him" (v. 34; cf. Mt. 9:29). In all the accounts sight was received immediately (eutheōs, Mt. 20:34; euthys, Mk 10:52.; parachrēma, Lk. 18:43). These were physical eyes, but we may also ask for our spiritual eyes to be opened.

Dale C. Allison, Jr., comments on the relation between the two accounts of healing two blind men in Matthew:

This passage [Mt. 20:29-34] is remarkably reminiscent of 9:27-30. In both Jesus is being followed, two blind men appear, the blind men cry out and say, ‘Have mercy on us, Son of David’, Jesus touches their eyes, and they see again. There are also striking verbal links (cf. e.g. 20:29, 30 with 9:27). These parallels form a sort of inclusio. The first restoration of sight occurs towards the beginning of the ministry, the second near the end. This gives an artistic unity to the whole gospel. Furthermore, the first takes place before corporate Israel has rejected Jesus, the second after that rejection has become manifest. So despite being rejected, Jesus’ charity remains the same throughout. His difficulties do not cancel his compassion. (Dale C. Allison, Jr., The Oxford Bible Commentary, 2001, p. 871 on Mt. 20:29-34)

Allison also suggest that the sequence of this account and the preceding account has a lesson for us:

In the former [account, Mt. 20:20-28], two privileged insiders, (James and John) make a request through a third party (their mother). The request is prefaced by no title of respect or majesty, it concerns the eschatological future, and it involves personal exaltation (to sit at the right and left of the Messiah). In the latter, two outsiders (the blind men) make a request that a third party (the crowd) tries to stifle. That request is prefaced by titles of respect and majesty, concerns the present, and is for something necessary that is taken for granted by most (sight). One might infer that petitions are more likely to be heard when addressed directly, with respect, and for things truly needful. (Ibid.)

This prayer was for physical sight, and Allison makes a good point. It is needful. But we also should remember to pray for spiritual sight, and spiritual insight (cf. Jn. 9:40-41).

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net