Esther 3:1-4:3

3:1 After these things King Ahasuerus promoted Haman son of Hammedatha the Agagite, and advanced him and set his seat above all the officials who were with him. 2 And all the king’s servants who were at the king’s gate bowed down and did obeisance to Haman; for the king had so commanded concerning him. But Mordecai did not bow down or do obeisance. 3 Then the king’s servants who were at the king’s gate said to Mordecai, “Why do you disobey the king’s command?” 4 When they spoke to him day after day and he would not listen to them, they told Haman, in order to see whether Mordecai’s words would avail; for he had told them that he was a Jew. 5 When Haman saw that Mordecai did not bow down or do obeisance to him, Haman was infuriated. 6 But he thought it beneath him to lay hands on Mordecai alone. So, having been told who Mordecai’s people were, Haman plotted to destroy all the Jews, the people of Mordecai, throughout the whole kingdom of Ahasuerus.

7 In the first month, which is the month of Nisan, in the twelfth year of King Ahasuerus, they cast Pur–which means “the lot”–before Haman for the day and for the month, and the lot fell on the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, which is the month of Adar. 8 Then Haman said to King Ahasuerus, “There is a certain people scattered and separated among the peoples in all the provinces of your kingdom; their laws are different from those of every other people, and they do not keep the king’s laws, so that it is not appropriate for the king to tolerate them. 9 If it pleases the king, let a decree be issued for their destruction, and I will pay ten thousand talents of silver into the hands of those who have charge of the king’s business, so that they may put it into the king’s treasuries.” 10 So the king took his signet ring from his hand and gave it to Haman son of Hammedatha the Agagite, the enemy of the Jews. 11 The king said to Haman, “The money is given to you, and the people as well, to do with them as it seems good to you.”

12 Then the king’s secretaries were summoned on the thirteenth day of the first month, and an edict, according to all that Haman commanded, was written to the king’s satraps and to the governors over all the provinces and to the officials of all the peoples, to every province in its own script and every people in its own language; it was written in the name of King Ahasuerus and sealed with the king’s ring. 13 Letters were sent by couriers to all the king’s provinces, giving orders to destroy, to kill, and to annihilate all Jews, young and old, women and children, in one day, the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, which is the month of Adar, and to plunder their goods. 14 A copy of the document was to be issued as a decree in every province by proclamation, calling on all the peoples to be ready for that day. 15 The couriers went quickly by order of the king, and the decree was issued in the citadel of Susa. The king and Haman sat down to drink; but the city of Susa was thrown into confusion.

4:1 When Mordecai learned all that had been done, Mordecai tore his clothes and put on sackcloth and ashes, and went through the city, wailing with a loud and bitter cry; 2 he went up to the entrance of the king’s gate, for no one might enter the king’s gate clothed with sackcloth. 3 In every province, wherever the king’s command and his decree came, there was great mourning among the Jews, with fasting and weeping and lamenting, and most of them lay in sackcloth and ashes. (Esther 3:1-4:3, NRSV)

Some of the following comments are based on comments from September 24, 2006 (the Sunday closest to September 21, Year Two):

In Friday’s reading we saw that Queen Vashti, by refusing a request to appear at the men’s banquet, fell into disfavor with King Ahasuerus (Xerxes I) of Persia (Esth.1:12-19). In yesterday’s reading we were introduced to the Jew Mordecai and his cousin Hadassah, that is, Esther, for whom he served as a guardian (2:5-8). Esther was included among those from whom Vashti’s replacement as queen would be selected (v. 8), and Mordecai encouraged her not to reveal that she was Jewish (v. 10). Esther was selected as the next queen (vv. 15-17), which was celebrated by “Esther’s banquet” (v. 18). We also learned that Mordecai became aware of a conspiracy against the king, and his report led to the arrest and execution of the conspirators (vv. 21-23).

Today’s reading introduces “Haman the Agagite,” whom “King Ahasuerus promoted . . . and advanced . . . and set his seat above all the officials who were with him” (3:1). The author makes a point of Haman’s connection, as a descendant, of Agag, the Amalekite king defeated by King Saul of Israel (1 Sam. 15). Hostility between the Amalekites and the Israelites goes back to the period of the exodus (cf. Exod. 17:8-16; Deut. 25:17-19). We are told that, after the defeat of Amalek, “Moses built an altar and called it, The LORD is my banner. He said, ‘A hand upon the banner of the LORD! The LORD will have war with Amalek from generation to generation’ ” (Exod. 17:15-16).

This ancient enmity apparently comes to light when, though “all the king’s servants who were at the king’s gate bowed down and did obeisance to Haman; for the king had so commanded concerning him” (Esth. 3:2a), “Mordecai did not bow down or do obeisance” (v. 2b). Mordecai is immediately questioned by “the king’s servants who were at the king’s gate,” who said to him, ‘Why do you disobey the king’s command?’ ” (v. 3). When Mordecai ignored these servants they persisted. “When they spoke to him day after day and he would not listen to them, they told Haman, in order to see whether Mordecai’s words would avail; for he had told them that he was a Jew” (v. 4). Mary Joan Winn Leith comments on the words, “day after day,” which she sees as a parallel to Gen. 39:10, where Joseph resists Potiphar’s wife . . . Both Mordecai and Joseph are falsely accused, then vindicated and promoted. Mordecai’s motives for refusing to bow are not clearly stated, but as with Vashti’s similarly enigmatic refusal, what might have been a private matter becomes a crisis involving the entire empire” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on Esth. 3:4). According to Adele Berlin,

Mordecai’s refusal [to bow down or do obeisance, v. 2] is not based on religious principles, for biblical Jews or Israelites may bow to superiors (Gen. 23:7; 43:28; Exod. 18:7; 1 Kings 1:23), but on ethnic grounds so as not to give honor to an enemy of Israel. Rabbinic interpretation recasts the refusal in terms of a religious prohibition, saying that Haman was wearing an image of an idol on his chest and that in bowing to him Mordecai would be bowing to an idol. Another rabbinic explanation (also found in the LXX and at ho9me in the Hellenistic and Roman periods) is that it was improper to bow to anyone but God.” (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, pp. 1629-1630, on Esth. 3:2)

Haman, “infuriated,” when “Mordecai did not bow down or do obeisance to him” (v. 5), chose to make it a major issue, not just a personal matter, for “he thought it beneath him to lay hands on Mordecai alone. So, having been told who Mordecai’s people were, Haman plotted (wq02b1y4v1, wayy^ebaqqēš) to destroy (dym9w4h1l4, l^ehašmîd) all the Jews, the people of Mordecai, throughout the whole kingdom of Ahasuerus” (v. 6). Leith comments on the verbs here: “To destroy, translated ‘to assassinate’ in 2:21; plotted, translated ‘conspired’ in 2:21. Similar wording implies a parallel between Haman and the conspirators of 2:21-23” (op. cit., on v. 6).

Haman was apparently willing to bide his time, for his plans to destroy the Jews are set nearly a year in advance. “In the first month, which is the month of Nisan, in the twelfth year of King Ahasuerus, they cast Pur ( rUP, pûr)–which means “the lot”–before Haman for the day and for the month, and the lot fell on the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, which is the month of Adar” (v 7). “Pur,” says Berlin, is “from Alkkadian; the practice of casting lots by means of a small stone die is known from ancient Mesopotamia. Similar techniques were used in Israel and Greece. The propitious month is Adar, but no date is given until v. 13” (op. cit., on v. 7). The reference to “Pur” anticipates the establishing of the Festival of Purim (Myr9UP, pûrîm, 9:26, 28, 29; cf. Myr9Puh1, happurîm, v. 32). According to W. Lee Humphreys, revised by Sidnie White Crawford, “The name Purim is expressly linked with the word Pur (see 3:7)” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Esth. 9:26). This festival is still celebrated by Jews as “one of the most joyous and fun holidays on the Jewish calendar” (cf. Tracy R. Rich, webmaster, Judaism 101, “Purim,” on the Internet at http://www.jewfaq.org/holiday9.htm (accessed September 19, 2008). But in the story at chapter three, difficult challenges face the Jews before they can celebrate Purim.

Haman seeks to carry out his conspiracy, telling the king:

There is a certain people scattered and separated among the peoples in all the provinces of your kingdom; their laws are different from those of every other people, and they do not keep the king’s laws, so that it is not appropriate for the king to tolerate them. 9 If it pleases the king, let a decree be issued for their destruction, and I will pay ten thousand talents of silver into the hands of those who have charge of the king’s business, so that they may put it into the king’s treasuries. (Esth. 3:8-9, NRSV)

And the king responds readily to the one he has recently honored (3:1): “So the king took his signet ring from his hand and gave it to Haman son of Hammedatha the Agagite, the enemy of the Jews. The king said to Haman, ‘The money is given to you, and the people as well, to do with them as it seems good to you’ ” (vv. 10-11). According to Leith, “the signet ring gave Haman unlimited power to sign documents in the kings name (3:12; 8:2, 8; Gen. 41:41-42)” (op. cit., on v. 10). “After a reminder of Haman’s wicked ancestry,” with reference to “the Agagite,” she adds, “Haman’s epithet enemy of the Jews (8:1; 9:10, 24) makes its first appearance” (ibid.). So “the king’s secretaries were summoned on the thirteenth day of the first month, and an edict, according to all that Haman commanded, was written to the king’s satraps and to the governors over all the provinces and to the officials of all the peoples, to every province in its own script and every people in its own language; it was written in the name of King Ahasuerus and sealed with the king’s ring” (v. 12). But though it was written in the name of King Ahasuerus, it came, of course, from Haman, who now had the signet ring. Some irony is noted here. “Ironically, the thirteenth day of the first month is the day before Jews celebrate Passover (Lev. 23:5-8), in which they remember how God delivered them in Egypt” (Humphreys and Crawford, op. cit., on v. 12; cf. Leith, op. cit., on v. 12). Haman apparently planned a massive, empire wide assault on the Jews–requiring his year of lead time–for these letters penetrated the whole empire. “Letters were sent by couriers to all the king’s provinces, giving orders to destroy, to kill, and to annihilate all Jews, young and old, women and children, in one day, the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, which is the month of Adar, and to plunder their goods” (v. 13). It is emphasized that copies of the document were “to be issued as [decrees] in every province by proclamation, calling on all the peoples to be ready for that day” (v. 14). Given the reference to “one hundred twenty-seven provinces from India to Ethiopia” (1:1), it would appear that Haman’s hatred–megalomania, apparently–was planning a massive overkill, since it is unlikely that the Jews were scattered from India to Ethiopia at this time. According to Humphreys and Crawford, “proclamation so far in advance also gives notice to the Jews of the danger, allowing Mordcai and Esther time to act” (op. cit., on v. 14). But Haman’s orders to spread the decree are quickly carried out. “The couriers went quickly by order of the king, and the decree was issued in the citadel of Susa” (v. 15a). The author pictures a contrast between Haman’s self-satisfaction with the king’s approval, and the effect on the people at large. “The king and Haman sat down to drink; but the city of Susa was thrown into confusion” (v. 15b).

Mordecai was devastated, of course by this turn of events. “When Mordecai learned all that had been done, Mordecai tore his clothes and put on sackcloth and ashes, and went through the city, wailing with a loud and bitter cry; he went up to the entrance of the king’s gate, for no one might enter the king’s gate clothed with sackcloth” (4:1-2). The author presents a similar of dismay and grief among the Jews throughout the empire. “In every province, wherever the king’s command and his decree came, there was great mourning among the Jews, with fasting and weeping and lamenting, and most of them lay in sackcloth and ashes” (v. 3). The effect on Queen Esther and further developments await further readings this week.

Judith 5:22-6:4

22 When Achior had finished saying these things, all the people standing around the tent began to complain; Holofernes’ officers and all the inhabitants of the seacoast and Moab insisted that he should be cut to pieces. 23 They said, “We are not afraid of the Israelites; they are a people with no strength or power for making war. 24 Therefore let us go ahead, Lord Holofernes, and your vast army will swallow them up.”

6:1 When the disturbance made by the people outside the council had died down, Holofernes, the commander of the Assyrian army, said to Achior in the presence of all the foreign contingents:

2 “Who are you, Achior and you mercenaries of Ephraim, to prophesy among us as you have done today and tell us not to make war against the people of Israel because their God will defend them? What god is there except Nebuchadnezzar? He will send his forces and destroy them from the face of the earth. Their God will not save them; 3 we the king’s servants will destroy them as one man. They cannot resist the might of our cavalry. 4 We will overwhelm them; their mountains will be drunk with their blood, and their fields will be full of their dead. Not even their footprints will survive our attack; they will utterly perish. So says King Nebuchadnezzar, lord of the whole earth. For he has spoken; none of his words shall be in vain. (Judith 5:22-6:4, NRSV)

The following comments are repeated here with editing and supplement from September 24, 2006 (the Sunday closest to September 21, Year Two):

As we noted yesterday, Achior’s outline of Israel’s history for Holofernes concludes with a warning against attacking Israel. He points out that the possibility of his conquering the Israelites will depend, not on his own military prowess and strength, but on whether “they sin against their God” (Jdt. 5:20), or “they are not a guilty nation,” in which case “their Lord and God will defend them, and we shall become the laughingstock of the whole world” (v. 21).

In today’s reading, we learn that Holofernes was not alone in his displeasure with Achior’s advice. “When Achior had finished saying these things,” we are told, “all the people standing around the tent began to complain” (v. 22a). As is often the case, in their anger and frustration they blame the messenger, for “Holofernes’ officers and all the inhabitants of the seacoast and Moab insisted that he [Achior] should be cut to pieces” (v. 22b). The people explain, “We are not afraid of the Israelites; they are a people with no strength or power for making war. Therefore let us go ahead, Lord Holofernes, and your vast army will swallow them up” (vv. 23-24).

The disturbance “made by the people outside the council” dies down (6:1a), and Holofernes, quick to agree with the people, denounces Achior “in the presence of all the foreign contingents” (v. 1b): “Who are you, Achior and you mercenaries of Ephraim, to prophesy among us as you have done today and tell us not to make war against the people of Israel because their God will defend them? What god is there except Nebuchadnezzar?” (v. 2a). According to Toni Craven, revised by John J. Collins, by asking “Who are you? What god is there except Nebuchadnezzar? Holofernes asks important identity questions that constitute one of the corresponding symmetries in the two halves of the book. In 8:12, Judith asks the magistrates of Bethulia, Who are you to put God to the test today?” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Jdt. 6:2). The reference to Nebuchadnezzar as a “god” appears in the Book of Judith prior to the first reading in the present series (Jdt. 4:1-15, Friday, Sept. 19, 2008). Holofernes responded to pleas from coastal cities (Azotus and Ascalon, cf. Sidon, Tyre, Sur, Ocina, and Jamnia (2:28): “We, the servants of Nebuchadnezzar, the Great King, lie prostrate before you. Do with us whatever you will” (3:1), by demolishing “all their shrines and cut[ting] down their sacred groves; for he had been commissioned to destroy all the gods of the land, so that all nations should worship Nebuchadnezzar alone, and that all their dialects and tribes should call upon him as a god” (3:8).

In the present context Holofernes continues his denunciation of Achior and the “mercenaries of Ephraim.” “He [i.e., the ‘god’ Nebuchadnezzar] will send his forces and destroy them from the face of the earth. Their God will not save them; we the king’s servants will destroy them as one man” (vv. 2b, 3a). He claims invincibility. “They cannot resist the might of our cavalry” (v. 3b).

And today’s reading concludes with Holofernes’s challenge, prior to his ejection of Achior from the camp (vv. 5-13): We will overwhelm them; their mountains will be drunk with their blood, and their fields will be full of their dead. Not even their footprints will survive our attack; they will utterly perish. So says King Nebuchadnezzar, lord of the whole earth. For he has spoken; none of his words shall be in vain” (v. 4). According to Judith Day, “Holofernes again asserts the divine sovereignty of Nebuchadnezzar” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on Jdt. 6:2-4, with ref. to 3:8).

The following comments are repeated here from September 24, 2006 (The Nineteenth Sunday after Pentecost, refs. for the Sunday closest to September 21, Year Two):

James 1:19-27

Hearing and Doing the Word

19 You must understand this, my beloved: let everyone be quick to listen, slow to speak, slow to anger; 20 for your anger does not produce God's righteousness. 21 Therefore rid yourselves of all sordidness and rank growth of wickedness, and welcome with meekness the implanted word that has the power to save your souls.

22 But be doers of the word, and not merely hearers who deceive themselves. 23 For if any are hearers of the word and not doers, they are like those who look at themselves in a mirror; 24 for they look at themselves and, on going away, immediately forget what they were like. 25 But those who look into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and persevere, being not hearers who forget but doers who act-they will be blessed in their doing.

26 If any think they are religious, and do not bridle their tongues but deceive their hearts, their religion is worthless. 27 Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world. (James 1:16-27, NRSV)

On May 15, 2007 (Tuesday in the week of the Sixth Sunday of Easter, Year One), comments on James 1:16-27 were repeated from comments of November 17, 2006 (Friday in the week of the Sunday closest to November 9, Year Two), that were combined with revision and supplement from November 12, 2004 (Friday in the week of the Sunday closest to November 9, Year Two) and from May 3, 2005 (Tuesday of the week of the Sixth Sunday of Easter, Year One). Relevant comments are repeated here with some editing and supplement:

The reading from James begins with an admonition to live righteously. “You must understand this, my beloved” he says: “let everyone be quick to listen, slow to speak, slow to anger; for your anger does not produce God's righteousness (Jas. 1:19-20). Cain Hope Felder calls this “a three-part wisdom saying (cf. Sir 5:11) [that] alerts the reader to an important distinction between James and Paul. Paul (2 Cor. 5:21) probably means a ‘righteousness found in God’ but imparted to believers as a gift, whereas the Jewish Christian James means a standard of righteousness established by God to which the believer seeks to conform” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on James 1:19). This admonition to be “slow to speak,” says James B. Addison,

may refer to the perils of the tongue and the perils of overmuch speaking–a stock theme of the ancient moralist. ‘Be not hasty in thy tongue, and in thy deeds slack and remiss’ [Sir. 4:29] In the second part of the Epistle (chs. 3, 4) James mentions one particularly vicious sin of the tongue, viz., malicious slander (4:11), which the rabbis called ‘the third tongue’ (lishan telitay), for it slays three persons–the speaker, the spoken to, and the spoken of [b ‘Arakin 15b]. (The Epistle of James, NICNT, 1995, p. 78, on Jas. 1:19)

The admonition to be “slow to anger” (v. 19) is followed by the explanation, “for your anger (ojrghv, orgē, ‘wrath’ AV/KJV) does not produce God’s righteousness (dikaiosuvnh, dikaiosynē). Among other interpretations of this which Addison cites, he prefers that of J. H. Ropes, “this is the warning against the wrong but common Jewish doctrine that anger ‘is sometimes valuable as an engine of righteousness. While man may imitate certain divine qualities, according to the Jews, certain ones, notably anger, are forbidden: ‘Thrice was Moses angry, and thrice he failed to produce the mind of God’” (Addison, pp. 78-79, citing b Pes. 66b). Addison adds:

The objection to [human] wrath is not simply that it is bad tactics and futile. Even if a pedagogue’s wrath–contrast God’s patience (1:5)–may produce righteousness in his pupil (Zahn), Christians are not told to eschew wrath because it has no good effect on the persons wronged. The reason is not necessarily the possible effect on the target of my wrath: you might be more grieved, and even damaged, by cold, calculated, and justified censures than by any heated chastisement from my tongue. In Christianity, sin is forbidden primarily because of its effect on the sinner. (ibid., p. 79 on v. 20)

We are further advised to rid ourselves “of all sordidness and rank growth of wickedness,” welcoming instead “the implanted word that has the power to save [our] souls” (v. 21). This “implanted word,” says Felder, is “a rare phrase meaning the same as “word of truth” in 1:18" (op. cit., on v. 21). After considering various views, Addison concludes that “implanted” (emphytos) does not mean “innate” (Hort), but rather, based on Hort’s reference to “a secondary ingrowth,” and to “a Divine gift (Hort’s phrase), we may very well say ‘sown’ or ‘planted’ (but not ‘engrafted,’ KJV), in the regularly used metaphorical sense” (op. cit., p. 81, on v. 21). Addison adds:

The Jewish Torah was held to be redemptive, the medicine of life and a ‘spice’ against the yetser [i.e. the (evil) impulse]. ‘Torah is the only way that leadeth to life’ [b. Qid. 30b]. Like the Torah, the implanted Word was redemptive, uniquely so since this was the ‘Torah of the Messiah.’ James may not mention Christ by name, but Christ’s Saviorhood, if not explicitly elaborated here, is everywhere implied. (ibid.)

James calls for righteousness in our actions. He says, “be (or ‘become,’ Givnesqe, Ginesthe) doers (poihtaiv, poiētai) of the word, and not merely hearers (ajkroataiv, akroatai) who deceive themselves” (v. 22). Later he will argue that faith without “works” is useless; they belong together (James 2:14-26). Addison calls attention to the present tense of the verb be, with its “continuative sense: ‘Keep on striving to be doers of the Word.” He adds that “the Hebraic doers (Vulgate factores), comparable to ‘doers of the law,’ is almost adjectival, like ‘law-abiding,’ ‘law-breakers’ (ibid., p. 82, on v. 22, with ref. to Hort). The “word” of which we are to be “doers” is, of course, the “word of truth” (v. 18), the “implanted word” (v. 21), “the gospel as taught by Jesus, then practiced and proclaimed by his followers” (ibid.). James goes on to describe two kinds of people. Some “are like those who look at themselves in a mirror . . . and, on going away, immediately forget what they were like” (vv. 23-24). Others, “who will be blessed in their doing,” are the ones “who look into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and persevere, being not hearers who forget but doers who act” (v. 25). Addison finds here

two contrasts: (I) between a hasty, forgetful glance and an attentive, sustained study; (ii) between the picture, glimpsed in a mirror of a mortal, physical face, and the picture, contained in the divine law, of the ideal pattern of each immortal soul for the time being inhabiting the mortal flesh, and while still in that flesh, striving to approach that immortal ideal. (ibid., pp. 82-83 on vv. 23-25)

The actions are similar, but the reflections are from different sources, the one from a mirror, and the other from “the perfect law, the law of liberty” (v. 25). The immediate forgetting of the one has little or no effect, but the “attentive, sustained study of the other is life-transforming. Sophie Laws comments on the law of liberty: “Jewish teachers also argued that the law is not a constraint, but rather gives true freedom” (on Jas. 1:25). Torah (hr!OT), the Hebrew word for “law,” frequently means “direction,” or “instruction,” and is related to the verb yrh (hry) , which means “instruct, teach” (William L. Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon, 1971, 10^th corrected impression 1988, s.v. hr!OT, torah, and hry, yrh III). We might understand the liberty or freedom which following the laws (rules) gives if we think of the rules of an athletic game (e.g. baseball, soccer) or the principles of music. One who knows the rules of the game and is trained in following them can follow the rules with good results. One who knows the principles of music and is trained in the use of a musical instrument can play with a freedom unavailable to the novice. In both instances, “breaking the rules” will lead to unsatisfactory results. As with many topics treated in James, chapter 1, this one relates to a fuller treatment later in the book (i.e. 2:8-13).

James moves on to say, “If any think they are religious, and do not bridle their tongues but deceive their hearts, their religion is worthless” (v. 26, cf. v. 19). As before this saying anticipates a later section of the book (3:2-21). The truly religious person will care for the needy, “orphans and widows,” and will “keep oneself unstained by the world” (v. 27; cf. 2:14-17). So James gives us a lot to think about. Being “doers of the word, and not merely hearers who deceive themselves” (v. 22), has broad implications. We might search this chapter for things to do–what does he mean? But though the chapter concludes with a warning to “bridle” our “tongues” (v. 26), and a definition of pure religion as “to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world” (v. 27), the “doing” is not confined to this chapter. Fulfilling “the perfect law, the law of liberty” (v. 25), means not being partial (chap. 2), taming the tongue (chap. 3) and so forth.

Matthew 6:1-6, 16-18

Concerning Almsgiving

6:1 “Beware of practicing your piety before others in order to be seen by them; for then you have no reward from your Father in heaven.

2 “So whenever you give alms, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be praised by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. 3 But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 so that your alms may be done in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

Concerning Prayer (Lk 11.2-4)

5 “And whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, so that they may be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. 6 But whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you. (Matthew 6:1-6, NRSV)

Concerning Fasting

16 “And whenever you fast, do not look dismal, like the hypocrites, for they disfigure their faces so as to show others that they are fasting. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. 17 But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, 18 so that your fasting may be seen not by others but by your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you. (Matthew 6:16-18, NRSV)

On April 21, 2008 (Monday in the week of the Fifth Sunday of Easter, Year Two), comments were repeated from September 27, 2007 (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to September 21, Year One), when comments were repeated from September 24, 2006 (the Sunday closest to September 21, 2006, Year Two), when they were repeated with slight revision from May 15, 2005 (Monday of the week of the Fifth Sunday of Easter, Year Two); compare the similar comments of May 15, 2006 (Monday in the week of the Fifth Sunday of Easter, Year Two). The comments of April 21, 2008, are repeated again here:

The Sermon on the Mount draws our attention to Jesus’ teachings on aspects of piety, including almsgiving (Mt. 6:1-4), prayer in secret (vv. 5-6), how to pray, including the Lord’s Prayer (vv. 7-15), fasting (vv. 16-18), treasure in heaven and related matters (vv. 19-24), and the remedy for anxiety (vv. 25-34).

With reference to Jesus’ teaching about almsgiving, C. G. Montefiore (a Jewish author) says, “There is no novelty for Jewish readers in the excellent remarks about almsgiving. They are characteristically Rabbinic” (The Synoptic Gospels, vol. II, 1968, p. 95 on Mt. 6:1-4). He admits that “Doubtless there were ‘hypocrites’ in the age of Jesus, as in every subsequent age and among all creeds,” but he decries a tendency for some to use Jesus’ words, go further, and “attack the Rabbinic religion as such” (ibid.). We should agree, and assume that while Jesus’ criticisms apparently had certain individuals or groups in mind, they should not be generalized and applied to all Jews everywhere. He himself was a Jew, as were all of the first Christians. Montefiore cites the belief of Dr Büchler (Journal of Theological Studies, 1909),

that the allusion to trumpets and to praying and almsgiving in the streets ([vv.] 2 and 5) points to the particular and only occasion when such practices prevailed. This was on public fast-days for rain, held usually in seasons of drought during October and November. Perhaps Matt. vi. 1-4, 16 may have been spoken at this very season. Jesus would seem to deprecate the public giving of alms and the public fasting which then prevailed. At all events there is no other allusion to praying in the streets in the Rabbinical literature. (op. cit., pp. 95-96)

We must be aware of Jewish sensitivity to criticism in these areas. However, it is probably true that Matthew, by including in his Gospel these criticisms made earlier by Jesus, was really focusing on the shortcomings of Christian believers within his community, which doubtless included a few “hypocrites.” We also note that the instructions for Christian piety are put in contrast with what “the Gentiles do” (v. 7), but that is part of tomorrow’s reading. J. Andrew Overman says, “Acts of justice, like prayer (vv. 5-6), are between the doer and God, not for public approval, in contrast to Roman philanthropy, which included the public display of good works” NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on Mt. 6:3-4).

Jesus’ instructions about fasting (vv. 16-18), like the earlier instructions, are set in contrast to what “the hypocrites” do (v. 16); but the cautions given above apply here as well. The fault is not limited to any one group. The language, however, carries over into the tradition cited by the Didache, known as “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles”: “Let not your fasts be with the hypocrites, for they fast on Mondays and Thursdays, but do you fast on Wednesdays and Fridays” (Did. 8:1, trans., Kirsopp Lake, ed., The Apostolic Fathers, Loeb Classical Library, vol. I, p. 307). Compare the translation of Cyril C. Richardson, “Your fasts must not be identical with those of the hypocrites. They fast on Mondays and Thursdays; but you should fast on Wednesdays and Fridays” (on the Internet at Christian Classics Ethereal Library, Early Christian Fathers, “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, Commonly Called the Didache,” at http://www.ccel.org/ccel/richardson/fathers.viii.i.iii.html, accessed Sept. 20, 2008). The Didache, from the early second century, apparently reflects the need for groups to have different identifiers or “boundary markers,” as some sociologists might put it, in the reference to different days as appropriate for fasting (cf. views of Lake that I’ve simplified a bit). Overman comments, “Fasting, often associated with festivals and holy days of the Second Temple period, was adopted as a mark of individual piety (Mk. 2:18-20; Lk. 18:12)” (op. cit., on Mt. 6:16-18).

Many Christians have found value in the pious activities described in today’s reading. Prayer should come naturally to us, and the giving of alms–help where needed–is certainly important. Fasting has certain value as well, but one should exercise Christian stewardship as well, including care for one’s health and well-being.

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net