Hosea 14:1-9

A Plea for Repentance

14:1 Return, O Israel, to the LORD your God,

for you have stumbled because of your iniquity.

2 Take words with you

and return to the LORD;

say to him,

“Take away all guilt;

accept that which is good,

and we will offer

the fruit of our lips.

3 Assyria shall not save us;

we will not ride upon horses;

we will say no more, ‘Our God,’

to the work of our hands.

In you the orphan finds mercy.”

Assurance of Forgiveness

4 I will heal their disloyalty;

I will love them freely,

for my anger has turned from them.

5 I will be like the dew to Israel;

he shall blossom like the lily,

he shall strike root like the forests of Lebanon.

6 His shoots shall spread out;

his beauty shall be like the olive tree,

and his fragrance like that of Lebanon.

7 They shall again live beneath my shadow,

they shall flourish as a garden;

they shall blossom like the vine,

their fragrance shall be like the wine of Lebanon.

8 O Ephraim, what have I to do with idols?

It is I who answer and look after you.

I am like an evergreen cypress;

your faithfulness comes from me.

9 Those who are wise understand these things;

those who are discerning know them.

For the ways of the LORD are right,

and the upright walk in them,

but transgressors stumble in them. (Hosea 14:1-9 NRSV = 14:2-10 Heb.)

The following comments are repeated here with some editing and supplement from October 9, 2006 (Monday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 5, Year Two):

The Book of Hosea closes with one more appeal for repentance, with assurances of healing and restoration. “Return, O Israel, to the LORD your God, / for you have stumbled because of your iniquity” (Hos. 14:1, v. 2 Heb.). The prophet would put words in Israel’s mouth. “Take words with you,” he says, “and return to the LORD; / say to him, / ‘Take away all guilt; / accept that which is good, / and we will offer / the fruit of our lips’” (v. 2, v. 3 Heb.). They are to repudiate their hope for salvation from Assyria, and no longer call “the work of our hands” their God (v. 3, v. 4 Heb.). “In you, they are to say to the LORD, “the orphan finds mercy (Nh1ruy4, y^erucham)” (v. 3e [= v. 4e Heb.]). Gregory Mobley notes that “Mercy or ‘pity,’ [is] the the same [Heb.] root as in Lo-ruhamah/Ruhamah (1:6; 2:1)” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on Hos. 14:3).

If they repent, the LORD promises to “heal their disloyalty,” to “love them freely, / for my anger has turned from them” (v. 4, v. 5 Heb.). The LORD “will be like the dew to Israel,” who, in turn “shall blossom like the lily,” and “strike root like the forests of Lebanon” (v. 5, v. 6 Heb.). Israel will thus flourish, for “His shoots shall spread out” (v. 6a, v. 7a Heb), “his beauty shall be like the olive tree, / and his fragrance like that of Lebanon” (v. 6b, c, v. 7b, c. Heb.). Mobley identifies this “fragrance [as] of the aromatic Lebanese cedar forest” (on v. 6). Israel will live beneath the LORD’s shadow, and “flourish as a garden; / they shall blossom like the vine [with] their fragrance . . . like the wine of Lebanon” (v. 7, v. 8 Heb.), that is, “Lebanese scented wine” (ibid.).

The LORD contrasts himself with idols. “O Ephraim, what have I to do with idols? / It is I who answer and look after you” (v. 8a, b, v. 9a, b Heb.). Even Israel’s faithfulness comes from the LORD (v. 8d, v. 9d Heb.). A concluding reminder tells us that the wise understand these things (v. 9a, b, Heb. v. 10a, b). “For the ways of the LORD are right, / and the upright walk in them, / but transgressors stumble in them” (v. 9c, d, e, v. 10c, d, e Heb.). “The prophetic word should not merely be heard once,” says Ehud Ben Zvi, “but must be carefully studied” (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, on Hos. 14:10 NJPS which, with the Heb. = v. 9 NRSV). In a similar vein, James Luther Mays, revised by Stephen L. Cook, calls this verse a “conclusion in the style of wisdom writings, such as Proverbs and Ps. 1. Study of Hosea’s book reveals God’s path to life, even for those living long after the prophet’s era” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Hos. 14:9).

Hosea 6:7-7:7 (Presbyterian and Lutheran traditions; this passages is not included in the current Book of Common Prayer Daily Office Lectionary series):

7 But at Adam they transgressed the covenant;

there they dealt faithlessly with me.

8 Gilead is a city of evildoers,

tracked with blood.

9 As robbers lie in wait for someone,

so the priests are banded together;

they murder on the road to Shechem,

they commit a monstrous crime.

10 In the house of Israel I have seen a horrible thing;

Ephraim’s whoredom is there, Israel is defiled.

11 For you also, O Judah, a harvest is appointed.

When I would restore the fortunes of my people,

7:1 when I would heal Israel,

the corruption of Ephraim is revealed,

and the wicked deeds of Samaria;

for they deal falsely,

the thief breaks in,

and the bandits raid outside.

2 But they do not consider

that I remember all their wickedness.

Now their deeds surround them,

they are before my face.

3 By their wickedness they make the king glad,

and the officials by their treachery.

4 They are all adulterers;

they are like a heated oven,

whose baker does not need to stir the fire,

from the kneading of the dough until it is leavened.

5 On the day of our king the officials

became sick with the heat of wine;

he stretched out his hand with mockers.

6 For they are kindled like an oven, their heart burns within them;

all night their anger smolders;

in the morning it blazes like a flaming fire.

7 All of them are hot as an oven,

and they devour their rulers.

All their kings have fallen;

none of them calls upon me. (Hosea 6:7-7:7, NRSV)

The following comments are repeated here from October 9, 2006 (Monday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 5, Year Two):

This reading begins with a list of locations where Israel has sinned. John Day calls these “obscure allusions to crimes at various locations” (The Oxford Bible Commentary, 2001, p. 575 on Hosea 6:4-7:16). “But at Adam,” a town near where Israel entered the promised land, “they transgressed the covenant; / there they dealt faithlessly with me” (Hos. 6:7). “At Adam” (v. 7 NRSV), the town, is a correction, as indicated by NRSV text note b, “Cn: Heb. like” (cf. TNIV text note e, “Or Like Adam; or Like human beings”). The Hebrew (MT = Massoretic Text) has Md!x!K4 (k^eādām), but the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia [BHS] apparatus says one should probably read Md!x!B4 (b^eādām); note the similarity of the letters k (k) and b (b), which, as prefixes, mean respectively “like” and “in” or “at.” Day says that, with 8:1, “we have here the only explicit reference to YHWH’s covenant (tyr9B4, b^erîth) with Israel with Israel in any of the eighth century prophets” (ibid.). Although others suggest that it means a political treaty, Day rejects that view. “Gilead is a city of evildoers,” says the prophet, “tracked with blood” (v. 8). According to Gregory Mobley, “men from Gilead participated in the assassination of King Pekahiah (2 Kings 15:25)” (NOAB, 2001, 3^rd ed. on Hos. 6:8). Some priests are charged with lying in wait for someone “as robbers,” with murder “on the road to Shechem,” and “a monstrous crime” (v. 9). Verse 10 refers to the now familiar charge of Ephraim’s whoredom, and a warning is added for Judah (v. 11a).

The LORD would “restore the fortunes of my people,” that is, he “would heal Israel”; but then “the corruption of Ephraim is revealed, / and the wicked deeds of Samaria” (6:11b; 7:1a, b, c), that is, false dealing, theft and banditry (v. 1d, e, f). God keeps track of such wickedness, whether the people are aware of it or not (7:2). If their wickedness and treachery make the king and the officials glad (v. 3), this only proves that “they are all adulterers” (v. 4a). Their wickedness is white hot, according to Mobley, like “the time between the kneading of the dough and its fermentation [which] is apparently when the oven was hottest” (ibid., on v. 4). The prophet pictures a chaotic, drunken scene. “On the day of our king the officials / became sick with the heat of wine; / he stretched out his hand with mockers. / For they are kindled like an oven, their heart burns within them; / all night their anger smolders; / in the morning it blazes like a flaming fire” (vv. 5-6). “The day of our king,” say Mays and Cook, means “the time of the coronation festival” (op. cit., on v. 5). This chaos serves as a metaphor for the final years of the northern kingdom that were plagued by a series of assassinations and usurpations. Shallum strikes down Zechariah (2 Kgs. 15:10), Menahem strikes down Shallum (v. 14), Pekah attacked and killed Pekahiah, the son of Menahem (v. 25), and Hoshea attacked and killed Pekah (v. 30). According to Day, “the treachery involved in one of the coups d’état is reflected in [Hos.] 7:3-7, possibly when Hoshea overthrew Pekah (c. [B.C.] 731) The passionate intrigue of the conspirators is compared to the heat of a baker’s oven (cf. 7:4, 6, 7).” Day adds that “it has sometimes been supposed that Hosea was opposed to kingship in principle, but it is more likely that it was the behaviour of contemporary kings that he opposed” (loc. cit.). “All of them are hot as an oven, / and they devour their rulers. / All their kings have fallen, / none of them calls upon me” (v. 7).

Acts 22:30-23:11

Paul before the Council

30 Since he wanted to find out what Paul was being accused of by the Jews, the next day he released him and ordered the chief priests and the entire council to meet. He brought Paul down and had him stand before them.

23:1 While Paul was looking intently at the council he said, “Brothers, up to this day I have lived my life with a clear conscience before God.” 2 Then the high priest Ananias ordered those standing near him to strike him on the mouth. 3 At this Paul said to him, “God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! Are you sitting there to judge me according to the law, and yet in violation of the law you order me to be struck?” 4 Those standing nearby said, “Do you dare to insult God’s high priest?” 5 And Paul said, “I did not realize, brothers, that he was high priest; for it is written, ‘You shall not speak evil of a leader of your people.’ “

6 When Paul noticed that some were Sadducees and others were Pharisees, he called out in the council, “Brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees. I am on trial concerning the hope of the resurrection of the dead.” 7 When he said this, a dissension began between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. 8 (The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, or angel, or spirit; but the Pharisees acknowledge all three.) 9 Then a great clamor arose, and certain scribes of the Pharisees’ group stood up and contended, “We find nothing wrong with this man. What if a spirit or an angel has spoken to him?” 10 When the dissension became violent, the tribune, fearing that they would tear Paul to pieces, ordered the soldiers to go down, take him by force, and bring him into the barracks.

11 That night the Lord stood near him and said, “Keep up your courage! For just as you have testified for me in Jerusalem, so you must bear witness also in Rome.” (Acts 22:30-23:11, NRSV)

On July 20, 2008 (the Sunday closest to July 20, Year Two), comments were repeated with editing and supplement from August 20, 2007 (Monday in the week of the Sunday closest to August 17, Year One), when comments were repeated with editing and supplement from October 9, 2006 (Monday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 5, Year Two), from July 23, 2006 (the Sunday closest to July 20, 2006), from July 18, 2004, in an email sent July 17, 2004, for July 17 and 18, and from August 15, 2005 (Monday of the week of the Thirteenth Sunday after Pentecost, Year One). The comments are repeated again here.

In recent readings, Paul and his party arrived in Jerusalem after being warned at Ptolemais against going to Jerusalem by the prophet Agabus (Acts 21:12). In the continuation we learn how the leading Christians of Jerusalem welcomed them (Acts 21:17) and rejoiced in the report of Paul’s ministry among the Gentiles (v. 19). But Paul is advised on ways to prove to the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem that he is not opposed to the Mosaic Law. He is to go through the rites of purification with four men under a vow, and pay for the shaving of their heads, which he does (vv. 21-26). But while Paul is in the temple completing this ritual process, he is accused by “Jews from Asia” of preaching against Jewish people and the temple, and of bringing Greeks into the temple (vv. 27-29). These opponents stir up a mob action, “trying to kill” Paul, which was prevented by the coming of the Roman tribune (vv. 30-31). And the tribune takes Paul into custody, as much, perhaps, for his protection as to investigate the incident (vv. 32-33). The crowd continues to cry out against Paul, shouting, “Away with him!” (v. 36, cf. 34-36). Paul surprises the tribune, who had mistaken him for “the Egyptian who recently stirred up a revolt” (v. 38), with his knowledge of Greek (v. 37) and his hometown, Tarsus of Cilicia (v. 39); so he is permitted to speak to the crowd, which he does “in the Hebrew language” (v. 38). By the words, “in the Hebrew language,” Luke means that Paul spoke “in the Aramaic dialect,” according to Beverly Roberts Gaventa, and “Paul’s use of Aramaic signals his identification with this Jewish audience” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Acts 21:40). This speech of Paul to the Jewish audience in the Jerusalem temple (Acts 22:1-21) is the second of three accounts in Acts of his conversion and call to be the missionary to the Gentiles (cf. 9:1-31; 26:12-23). In the temple the Jewish audience hears him out until he reports that the Lord “said to me, ‘Go. for I will send you far away to the Gentiles’ ” (22:21), which makes them angry and almost occasions another riot. But the tribune intervenes again and orders him to be examined by flogging (v. 24), which is only prevented by Paul’s claim to Roman citizenship (vv. 25-29).

This brings us to today’s reading. The tribune “wanted to find out what Paul was being accused of by the Jews, [so] the next day he released him and ordered the chief priests and the entire council (pa:n to; sunevdrion, pan to synedrion) to meet,” and “he brought Paul down and had him stand before them” (v. 30). According to Christopher R. Matthews, “the tribune calls for an advisory meeting of the council” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on Acts 22:30), but this was “to get evidence, not to try him” (ibid., on vv. 22:30-23-11). Since Paul is not on trial, though some have called for his execution (Acts 22:22), his opening claim of a “clear conscience” is understandable. “While Paul was looking intently at the council he said, ‘Brothers, up to this day I have lived my life with a clear conscience before God” (23:1). But when “the high priest Ananias ordered those standing near him to strike him on the mouth” (v. 2), Paul’s response is harder to fathom. “God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! Are you sitting there to judge me according to the law, and yet in violation of the law you order me to be struck?” (v. 3). According to Allan J. McNicol, this high priest, Ananias, was “the son of Nedebaeus who was Jewish high priest ca. A.D. 47-58” (Harper’s Bible Dictionary, s.v. Ananias, citing Josephus [Ant. 20.103, 131, 179, 205, refs. from Loveday Alexander, The Oxford Bible Commentary, 2001, on Acts 22:30-23:10]). When informed that he was addressing, or better, “insulting” (loidorei:V, loidoreis, from loidorevw, loidoreō, “revile, abuse tinav, tina, someone, BDAG), the high priest (v. 4), Paul claims ignorance and apologizes, noting that the Torah commands, “You shall not speak evil of a leader of your people” (v. 5, citing Exod. 22:28). According to Alexander:

Paul’s exchange with him [Ananias] is difficult to explain . . . even within the terms of Luke’s own interests; Barrett (1994-9: ii. 1062) says of this passage, ‘There is historical material behind this paragraph, but it is deep and remote.’ Luke’s account of the hearing does not follow exact judicial procedures, but it does convey some of the atmosphere of corruption and factionalism that pervades Josephus’ account of the procuratorship of Felix. Paul is able to exploit this factionalism to his own advantage (vv. 6-8), and Luke highlights a positive response to Paul from at least some within the Pharisaic party. (ibid.)

Paul takes note of this “factionalism”: When he “noticed that some were Sadducees and others were Pharisees,” he claims to be a Pharisee and believe in resurrection (Acts. 23:6), causing “a dissension . . . between the Pharisees and the Sadducees” (v.7). Some “scribes of the Pharisees’ group” conclude, “We find nothing wrong with this man, and they ask, “What if a spirit or an angel has spoken to him?” (v. 9), which reminds us of Gamaliel’s cautionary warning to the council (Acts 5:38-39). The Council remains undecided, and due to the “dissension,” which “became violent,” the tribune took Paul “into the barracks” (v. 10), where, overnight, Paul is encouraged by a word from the Lord. “Keep up your courage! For just as you have testified for me in Jerusalem, so you must bear witness also in Rome” (v. 11). Ahead in Acts (chaps. 23-28), Paul remains a prisoner. But during the storm and the shipwreck Paul will be the encourager who offers hope (Acts 27:21-26). We all need the kind of faith that Paul had to bring us through our own trials.

Luke 6:39-49

39 He also told them a parable: “Can a blind person guide a blind person? Will not both fall into a pit? 40 A disciple is not above the teacher, but everyone who is fully qualified will be like the teacher. 41 Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? 42 Or how can you say to your neighbor, ‘Friend, let me take out the speck in your eye,’ when you yourself do not see the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye.

A Tree and Its Fruit (Mt 7.15-20; 12:33-35)

43 “No good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit; 44 for each tree is known by its own fruit. Figs are not gathered from thorns, nor are grapes picked from a bramble bush. 45 The good person out of the good treasure of the heart produces good, and the evil person out of evil treasure produces evil; for it is out of the abundance of the heart that the mouth speaks.

The Two Foundations (Mt 7.21-27)

46 “Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I tell you? 47 I will show you what someone is like who comes to me, hears my words, and acts on them. 48 That one is like a man building a house, who dug deeply and laid the foundation on rock; when a flood arose, the river burst against that house but could not shake it, because it had been well built. 49 But the one who hears and does not act is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. When the river burst against it, immediately it fell, and great was the ruin of that house.” (Luke 6:39-49, NRSV)

On May 3, 2007 (Thursday in the week of the Fourth Sunday of Easter, Year One), comments were repeated with some revision from October 9, 2006 (Monday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 5, Year Two), when comments were repeated from April 21, 2005, two years ago (Thursday in the week of the Fourth Sunday of Easter, Year One), and from October 4, 2005 (Two years ago, Monday of the week of the Sunday Closest to October 5, Year Two). The comments are repeated again here with considerable editing and supplement. Some of the comments on the tree and its fruit, and on the saying about self-deception, below, are repeated from April 26, 2008 (Saturday in the week of the Fifth Sunday of Easter, Year Two). Some of the comments on the description of two houses that concludes the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the plain are repeated here from May 2, 2008 (Friday in the week of the Sixth Sunday of Easter, Year Two).

The following table shows that a few verses in the reading from Luke have parallels elsewhere in Matthew, but Mt. 10:33-35 represents a second use, a “doublet,” of the saying about good and bad fruit.

The closing parables and illustrations are similar in the Sermon on the Mount (Mt.) and the Sermon on the Plain (Lk). Today’s reading from Luke 6:39-49 is the end of the “Sermon on the Plain” according to Luke, a parallel to the end of the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew. But the short “parable” of the blind leading a blind person (Lk. 6:39; Mt. 15:14) appears in different contexts. In Luke it is an admonition for Jesus’ followers related to the admonition not to judge (v. 37, cf. v. 41). Matthew has used the saying in a later context in which Jesus criticizes the Pharisees and their “tradition” (Mt. 15:1-20). When the disciples tell him that the Pharisees “took offense” at what he said (v. 12), Jesus responds, “Every plant that my heavenly father has not planted will be uprooted. Let them alone; they are blind guides of the blind. And if one blind person guides another, both will fall into a pit” (vv. 13-14). In Matthew, the “parable” is a simple, direct statement. In Luke, it takes the form of two rhetorical questions. The first, introduced by Mhvti (Mēti), expects a negative answer. “Can a blind person guide a blind person?” (Lk. 6:39b). “No, of course not!” is the implied answer. We may translate the question as, “A blind person can’t lead a blind person, can he?” The second question, introduced by oujciv (ouchi), expects an affirmative answer, but points to the result of the blind leading the blind. “Will not both fall into a pit?” (v. 39c). These rhetorical questions in effect state what Matthew’s version states, but, as noted, in different contexts.

Luke’s next saying–also directed to Jesus’ followers–has a parallel in a different Matthean context. “A disciple is not above the teacher,” says Jesus in Luke, “but everyone who is fully qualified will be like the teacher” (Lk. 6:40; cf. Jn. 13:16; 15:20). The saying seems to state the obvious, as it were, but one can certainly envision disciple-teacher situations in which the saying would need to be stated. Matthew has put this saying within Jesus’ speech as he sends the disciples out on mission (Mt. 10:5-42) in connection with the warning that they–as would Jesus himself–may face persecution (v. 23). “A disciple is not above the teacher, nor a slave above the master; it is enough for the disciple to be like the teacher, and the slave like the master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul (12:24, 27), how much more will they malign those of his household!” (10:24-25). Incidently, the past tense reference here in chapter 10 to something in chapter 12 is one of many indications that Matthew has deliberately used material according to his topical arrangement, rather than in a strict chronological narrative sequence–though of course there is a general narrative sequence from Jesus’ birth, through his ministry as an adult leading to the climax in the Passion Narrative and Resurrection.

In the next section, Matthew’s material parallel to Luke’s returns to the Sermon on the Mount, more specifically in following up the admonition not to judge (Mt. 7:1-2; Lk. 6:37-38). In the saying about the speck, or the log, in one’s eye, much of the material is nearly the same, almost verbatim, in the two versions. In English, the first question is identical in both versions: “Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye,” Jesus asks, “but do not notice the log in your own eye?” (Mt. 7:3 = Lk. 6:41 NRSV; though worded differently TNIV also has the same wording for both verses). The Greek text here has a minor difference in word order, and a different word for “own” in the reference to “your own eye.” Matthew has the pronoun sw:/ (sō (i), dative case of soV, sos, “your”) where Luke has the adjective ijdivw/ (idiō (i), dative case of i[dioV, “one’s own, private, peculiar to oneself,” Wilbur Gingrich, Shorter Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, 1965, s.v. i[dioV, idios). Luke’s term is perhaps a little more emphatic. In the next question, the English translations show minor difference in wording, but the sense is essentially the same. “Or (h[, ē) how can you say ( ejrei:V, ereis, lit. ‘will you say’) to your neighbor (ajdelfovV, adelphos, lit. ‘brother,’ rendered as ‘neighbor’ NRSV to be inclusive, ‘brother’ AV/KJV, omitted by rewording TNIV), ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ while the log is in your own eye?” (Mt. 7:4). In Luke’s version, some manuscripts omit “or” (h[, ē) at the beginning. Those that include it likely do so influenced by Matthew’s version (cf. K. Aland et al., The Green New Testament, UBS, 3^rd ed., 1975, apparatus for Lk. 6:42). Luke’s version has duvnasai levgein (dynasai legein, “can you say”) for Matthew’s ( ejreiV, ereis, lit. ‘will you say’), translated “can you say.” And Luke’s version repeats “neighbor” (ajdelfovV, adelphos, lit. ‘brother,’ rendered as ‘neighbor’), translated the second time as “friend.” “Or how can you say to your neighbor (ajdelfovV, adelphos), ‘Friend (  jAdelfev, Adelphe, vocative case for direct address), let me take out the speck in your own eye,’ when you yourself do not see the log in your own eye?’ ” (Lk. 6:42a). The last part of the saying has minor differences in wording but essentially the same meaning. And in the two versions, the next statement is identical in Greek, as well as in English, except for minor differences in the Greek word order. “You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye” (Mt. 7:5 = Lk. 6:42b). (In Matthew’s Greek wording, “out of your own eye” comes before “the log,” whereas the reverse is true of Luke’s Greek wording. And Luke puts the infinitive “to take out” at the end of the statement, with no essential difference in meaning from Matthew’s version.)

On the Saying about A Tree and Its Fruit

The saying about trees (plants) and their fruit (Lk. 6:43-44) has parallels in two Matthean contexts, the Sermon on the Mount (Mt. 7:16-19) and the occasion when the Pharisees accuse Jesus of casting out demons by Beelzebul (Mt. 12:24, cf. vv. 22-37). Here again, based on the context in Luke, one might assume that Jesus’ admonitions are for his followers, and so applicable to those in Luke’s own Christian community. In both of Matthew’s contexts, the reference of similar material to Luke’s serves as criticism of opponents or outsiders. As he introduces the sayings about trees and their fruit, in Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says, “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves” (Mt. 7:15). J. Andrew Overman explains “false prophets” as “teachers of false doctrine,” and to “ravenous wolves,” he compares “Ezek. 22:27; Zeph. 3:3,” adding, “the remark reflects the early church’s situation” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on Mt. 7:15). Krister Stendahl offers a similar interpretation. Verses “15-23 [Mt. 7:15-23] are addressed against false teachers; the shorter parallels in Lk. speak of man in general. It is a warning for the church situation (‘false prophets’: Mt. 11, 24; Mk. 13:22, with reference to the future)” (Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, 1962, reprint 1972, sec. 681n, p. 780, on Mt. 7:15-23).

The Bible has several passages on the “fruits” that people produce. Well known is Isaiah’s song of the vineyard (Isa. 5:1-7), in which God laments the fact that he expected “grapes” from his vineyard Israel, but instead received “wild grapes” (literally ‘stinking things,’ Isa. 5:2, 4); he expected “justice, but saw bloodshed/righteousness,/but heard a cry” (v. 7). A happier picture emerges later, when Israel becomes “a pleasant vineyard” (Isa 27:2, cf. vv. 2-6). Paul’s passage on the “fruit of the Spirit” (Gal. 5:22-23) is well known. Here, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus warns us to “beware of false prophets” (Mt. 7:15), understood by Matthew, apparently, as a reference to false teachers arising within the Christian community. “You will know them by their fruits,” says Jesus (v. 16a). The “bad plants” are just weeds, “thorns” and “thistles” (v. 16b). In the parallel passage in Luke, the saying is more directly addressed to Christian believers. One could make the case for some use of the somewhat sour fruit of a thorn tree, or the blackberries from a bramble bush (Lk. 44), that figs and grapes are better. Wholehearted faithful Christian living produces the best fruit.

The thistles (a[kanqai, akanthai) and thorns (trivboloi, triboloi) mentioned by Matthew are simply useless weeds. But Luke’s terms, the thorns (a[kanqai, akanthai) and the bramble bush (bavtoV, batos), are different. The latter is a kind of blackberry bush, according to botanists Harold and Alma Moldenke (The Plants of the Bible, 1952). Luke’s thorn is the “Christ Thorn,” which produces a useful fruit, dry, but somewhat comparable to figs, and with a little imagination, one may see a resemblance between a blackberry and a bunch of grapes. Clearly, Jesus was talking about good trees and bad trees, but in reference to the false prophets, the bad plants were worthless weeds. In the other context, when Jesus was talking to disciples, there was something of a call for improvement. Figs are better than the fruit of the thorn bush (like apricots? sand hill plums? [found in Kansas]) and grapes are better than blackberries. Could we make a similar point with oranges and lemons? The warning about false prophets is to recognize and avoid them. But the admonition to the disciples is to bear good (better?) fruit. A key to that is the statement, “Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks” (Mt. 12:34; Lk. 6:45). “Keep your heart with all vigilance, for from it flow the springs of life” (Prov. 4:23).

On the Saying about Self-deception

Luke’s version of this saying is a rather direct question: “Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I tell you?” (Lk. 6:46). But in another context, Luke’s version is very strict. “Then you will begin to say, ‘We ate and drank with you, and you taught us in our streets.’ But he [the “owner of the house” in the parable] will say, ‘I do not know where you come from; go away from me, all you evildoers!’” (Lk. 13:26-27). In the context of today’s reading, both Matthew and Luke continue with the story of the House Built upon the Rock (Mt. 5:21-27; Lk. 6:46-49), which illustrates the fate of those who hear Jesus’ words and obey them, versus the fate of those who do not do so.

On the Two Foundations

The comparison of well-built houses to poorly built houses to illustrate the consequences for those who obey Jesus’ teaching and those who don’t concludes Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount (Mt. 5-7), and a similar comparison ends the sermon known as the Sermon on the Plain in Luke (Lk. 6:20-49). The two versions of this comparison are set side by side in the following table:

Matthew says that “everyone who hears these words of mine,” where Luke refers to “someone . . . who comes to me, hears my words,” both adding “and acts on them” (Mt. 7:24a; Lk. 6:47). The first comparison is that such a man “will be like” (Mt.) “is like” (Lk.) “a (wise, Mt.) man “who built his house” (Mt.)/ “building a house” (Lk.) “on a rock” (Mt.)/”who dug deeply and laid the foundation on rock” (Lk.) (Mt. 7:24b; Lk. 6:48a). With his reference to digging and laying the foundation (qemevlion, themelion, Lk. 6:48, 49, cf. “founded,” qemeliovw, themelioō, Mt. 7:25). The “foolish man,” “who hears these words of mine and does not act on them,” but builds his house “on sand” (Mt. 7:26), or “who hears and does not act . . . [but] built a house on the ground without a foundation” (Lk. 6:49a), has opened the floodgates, so to speak, for disaster. In Luke’s version, the second house is destroyed by a flood, “when the river burst against it [and] immediately it fell” (Lk. 6:49b), whereas, in Matthew’s version, the second house is destroyed by the winds that, accompanying the rains and flood, “beat against that house” (Mt. 7:27). Matthew concludes with the words, “and great was its fall (ptw:siV, ptōsis, cf. e[pesen, epesen, Mt. 7:27; sunevpesen, synepesen [‘fall together, collapse’], Lk. 6:49)!” but Luke says, “and great was the ruin (rJh:gma, hrēgma) of that house.” Luke’s language may seem a little more technical with reference to the process of construction, but both houses are founded on rock. And Luke’s language is perhaps a little more technical in referring to the “collapse,” or “ruin” of the second house. But the point remains the same: one should hear and obey Jesus’ teaching.

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net