Micah 3:1-8

Wicked Rulers and Prophets

3:1 And I said:

Listen, you heads of Jacob

and rulers of the house of Israel!

Should you not know justice?-

2 you who hate the good and love the evil,

who tear the skin off my people,

and the flesh off their bones;

3 who eat the flesh of my people,

flay their skin off them,

break their bones in pieces,

and chop them up like meat in a kettle,

like flesh in a caldron.

4 Then they will cry to the LORD,

but he will not answer them;

he will hide his face from them at that time,

because they have acted wickedly.

5 Thus says the LORD concerning the prophets

who lead my people astray,

who cry “Peace”

when they have something to eat,

but declare war against those

who put nothing into their mouths.

6 Therefore it shall be night to you, without vision,

and darkness to you, without revelation.

The sun shall go down upon the prophets,

and the day shall be black over them;

7 the seers shall be disgraced,

and the diviners put to shame;

they shall all cover their lips,

for there is no answer from God.

8 But as for me, I am filled with power,

with the spirit of the LORD,

and with justice and might,

to declare to Jacob his transgression

and to Israel his sin. (Micah 3:1-8, NRSV)

On October 12, 2006 (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 5, Year Two), comments were revised and supplemented from those of October 7, 2004 (Thursday of the week of the Sunday closest to October 5, Year Two); the revised comments are repeated here with some editing and supplement:

Earlier the prophet announces judgment “for the transgression of Jacob / and for the sins of the house of Israel” (1:5a, b) and asks, “What is the transgression of Jacob? / Is it not Samaria? (v. 5c, d). It could be that after the fall of the northern kingdom, a reference to “Jacob” could be traditional language applied to Judah, but here it is in synonymous parallelism with the questions, “And what is the high place of Judah? / Is it not Jerusalem?” (v. 5e, f). Although, according to Ben Zvi, some “scholars note that the text [of Micah] includes, among other references, an explicit reference to the Babylonian exile (4:10), and therefore they date it to the postmonarchic period (cf. 7:11-13), at least in its final form,” he also says “many scholars attribute much, but not all of the book of Micah either to the historical prophet or to someone close to the time mentioned in 1:1” (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, in the Introduction to Micah). So it is apparently true that Micah, a contemporary of Isaiah in the late eighth century B.C. (and perhaps the early seventh century), addressed both the northern and southern kingdoms.

So it is not surprising that, though the prophet addresses the leaders as “heads of Jacob,” and “rulers of the house of Israel” in the present reading (3:1), it is assumed by Ben Zvi that Micah is addressing the leaders of Jerusalem. He labels this chapter “the failures of leadership that led to the fall of Jerusalem” (ibid., on Micah 3:1-12; cf. the references to Zion and Jerusalem, vv. 10, 12). And Micah’s denunciation of Jerusalem’s leaders continues with rebuke for distorting justice (FP!w4m09h1, hammišpāt), that is, the court system. “Listen, you heads of Jacob,” says Micah, “and you rulers of the house of Israel! / Should you not know justice?–you who hate the good and love the evil” (Mic. 3:1b, c, d, 2a). Their legal decisions are described with what Philip J. King calls “the gruesome metaphor of cannibalism” (Harper-Collins Study Bible, 1^st. ed., 1993, on Mic. 3:1-4): “you . . . who tear the skin off my people, / and the flesh off their bones; / who eat the flesh of my people, / flay their skin off them, / break their bones in pieces, / and chop them up like meat in a kettle, / like flesh in a caldron" (Micah 3:2-3). According to Gregory Mobley, “Ezekiel also used this image (Ezek. 11:5-12; 24:1-14)” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on Micah 3:1-4). H. G. M. Williamson says these rulers “are condemned for manipulating the judicial process in a manner which results in a denial of true ‘justice’ (v. 1), a fundamental term in Micah’s critique (cf. 3:8, 9). As in 2:1-5, neither they nor the courts regarded their actions as illegal, but if the outcome is an intolerable oppression of the ordinary citizen (so the grotesque metaphor of vv. 2-3), then the system itself stands condemned. As a result, they themselves will call to God at some time of unspecified distress (v. 4, perhaps amplified by 3:12), only to find that he will no more answer them than they have the people” (The Oxford Bible Commentary, 2001, on Mic. 3:1-4). “Then they will cry to the LORD, / but he will not answer them; / he will hide his face from them at that time, / because they have acted wickedly” (v. 4).

False prophets are also denounced. They “cry, ‘Peace’ / when they have something to eat (Mh@yn02w9B4 Myk9w4n0oh1, hannōš ^ekîm b^ešinnēhem), / but declare war against those / who put nothing in their mouths" (v. 5c, d, e, f). Ben Zvi cites the recent Jewish translation, “when they have something to chew” (Mic. 3:5d, NJPS, 1985, 1999) and says, “or more literally, ‘when they have something to bite with their teeth [see the Heb., above]” (op. cit., on v. 5). “The point,” adds Ben Zvi,

is not so much that prophets received gifts from their ‘clients.’ This behavior seems to have been widely accepted (see 1 Sam. 9:8; 1 Kings 14:3; 2 Kings 4:42; 8:8-9; Amos 7:12), and the prophets needed their bread too. Rather, these prophets shaped or announced their prophecies to please their clients, so as to increase the gifts they received from them. By doing so they perverted their office (and the LORD’s trust) for material gain. (ibid.)

Mobley calls them “crowd pleasers . . . inspired on commission” (op. cit., on vv. 5-8). Ben Zvi comments further on Micah’s “powerful connotations”:

The choice of expression ‘bite with their teeth’ allows not only the wordplay between teeth and mouths, but also a description of the behavior of the prophets that evokes the animal behavior of other leaders (v. 3). The verb ‘nashakh [j`w1n!, nāšak],’ ‘to bite’ [see the citation of v. 5, above], has a sound reminiscent of ‘nachash [wH!n!, nāchāš],’ ‘snake.’ The same verb ‘nashakh’ [i.e., a homonym] means in other contexts ‘to charge interest’ and carries negative connotations (cf. Hab. 2:7; Deut. 23:20). To some extent, the text suggests that they are like beastly creditors or snakes that bite the flesh of Israel with their teeth (cf. v. 3). (ibid.)

Micah announces serious consequences for these prophets. Their visions and revelations will cease. “Therefore it shall be night to you, without vision” (v. 6a, b). They will find themselves in darkness. “The sun shall go down upon the prophets, / and the day shall be black over them” (v. 6c, d). “The seers,” says Micah, “shall be disgraced, / and the diviners put to shame; / they shall all cover their lips, / for there is no answer from God” (v. 7). On the other hand, Micah’s prophetic spirit is sound. He is “filled with power, / with the spirit of the LORD, / and with justice and might, / to declare to Jacob his transgression / and to Israel his sin” (v. 8).

Hosea 9:1-9 (Presbyterian and Lutheran traditions; this passages is not included in the current Book of Common Prayer Daily Office Lectionary series)

Punishment for Israel’s Sin

9:1 Do not rejoice, O Israel!

Do not exult as other nations do;

for you have played the whore, departing from your God.

You have loved a prostitute’s pay

on all threshing floors.

2 Threshing floor and wine vat shall not feed them,

and the new wine shall fail them.

3 They shall not remain in the land of the LORD;

but Ephraim shall return to Egypt,

and in Assyria they shall eat unclean food.

4 They shall not pour drink offerings of wine to the LORD,

and their sacrifices shall not please him.

Such sacrifices shall be like mourners’ bread;

all who eat of it shall be defiled;

for their bread shall be for their hunger only;

it shall not come to the house of the LORD.

5 What will you do on the day of appointed festival,

and on the day of the festival of the LORD?

6 For even if they escape destruction,

Egypt shall gather them,

Memphis shall bury them.

Nettles shall possess their precious things of silver;

thorns shall be in their tents.

7 The days of punishment have come,

the days of recompense have come;

Israel cries,

“The prophet is a fool,

the man of the spirit is mad!”

Because of your great iniquity,

your hostility is great.

8 The prophet is a sentinel for my God over Ephraim,

yet a fowler’s snare is on all his ways,

and hostility in the house of his God.

9 They have deeply corrupted themselves

as in the days of Gibeah;

he will remember their iniquity,

he will punish their sins. (Hosea 9:1-9, NRSV)

The following comments are repeated here from October 12, 2006 (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 5, Year Two):

According to John Day, “These verses form a prophetic diatribe, unlike 9:10-13, 15-16 and most of ch. 8, where YHWH speaks in the first person” (The Oxford Bible Commentary, 2001, on Hos. 9:1-9). But he adds, “The prophet [sic] condemns the festal worship and predicts that exile in Assyria and Egypt will bring it to an end.” It is true, of course, that the “prophetic diatribe” is the LORD’s voice spoken through the prophet, whose denunciation of Israel with the whoredom and prostitution metaphor continues. “Do not exult as other nations do; / for you have played the whore, departing from your God. / You have loved a prostitute’s pay / on all threshing floors” (Hos. 9:1b, c, d, e). According to Gregory Mobley, the reference to “threshing floors” points to the occasion of “harvest festivals [which] were an occasion for communal worship; in this case, illicit worship.” He adds, “They were also the site of sexual overtures (Deut. 3)” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on Hos. 9:1). Ehud Ben Zvi says,

The mention of the threshing floor under these circumstances (cf. Ruth ch. 3) and the explicit reference to a harlot’s fee and the statement ‘you committed deeds of whoredom’ [text?] all contribute to the text’s construction of an atmosphere of illicit sexual activity. In the book of Hosea, these images are associated with the theme of Israel’s abandoning the LORD. (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, on Hos. 9:2-4)

But now, the celebration will come to an end. “Threshing floor and wine vat shall not feed them, / and the new wine shall fail them” (v. 2), for “Ephraim shall return to Egypt” (v. 3b), possibly referring to a return to a bondage like that under Pharaoh from which Moses delivered them, explained as actually “in Assyria [where] they shall eat unclean food” (v. 3c). But Day says, “Israel’s return to Assyria and Egypt is predicted in v. 3, whilst v. 6. emphasizes simply the return to Egypt. This latter verse’s detail suggests it is meant literally, not symbolically” (loc. cit.).

So the prophet asks–or rather the LORD asks through the prophet–“What will you do on the day of appointed festival, / and on the day of the festival of the LORD?” (v. 5) Their punishment is certain. “For even if they escape destruction, / Egypt shall gather them, / Memphis [a city in Egypt] shall bury them” (v. 6a, b, c). When this punishment is announced (v. 7a, b), the people’s response is the cry, “The prophet is a fool, / the man of the spirit is mad!” (v. 7d, e). Day notes “the perception of other prophets as ‘mad’ ” in 2 Kings 9:11 and Jer. 29:16” (ibid.). Hosea responds, “The prophet is a sentinel for my God over Ephraim” (v. 8a). To this view of the prophet “as sentinel who sees at a distance and announces the divine approach,” Mobley compares “Isa. 21:6; Jer. 6:17; Ezek. 3:16-21; 33:6-8” (on v. 8). Israel has “deeply corrupted themselves / as in the days of Gibeah” (v. 9a, b; cf. 10:9). For comment on the terrible deeds at Gibeah (Judg. 19-21), see comments on Hosea 10:9 last Friday (Oct. 3, 2008). The prophet concludes today’s reading with assurance–the right word?–that the LORD “will remember their iniquity, / he will punish their sins” (v. 9c, d).

Acts 24:1-23

Paul before Felix at Caesarea

24:1 Five days later the high priest Ananias came down with some elders and an attorney, a certain Tertullus, and they reported their case against Paul to the governor. 2 When Paul had been summoned, Tertullus began to accuse him, saying:

“Your Excellency, because of you we have long enjoyed peace, and reforms have been made for this people because of your foresight. 3 We welcome this in every way and everywhere with utmost gratitude. 4 But, to detain you no further, I beg you to hear us briefly with your customary graciousness. 5 We have, in fact, found this man a pestilent fellow, an agitator among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes. 6 He even tried to profane the temple, and so we seized him. 8 By examining him yourself you will be able to learn from him concerning everything of which we accuse him.”

9 The Jews also joined in the charge by asserting that all this was true.

Paul’s Defense before Felix

10 When the governor motioned to him to speak, Paul replied:

“I cheerfully make my defense, knowing that for many years you have been a judge over this nation. 11 As you can find out, it is not more than twelve days since I went up to worship in Jerusalem. 12 They did not find me disputing with anyone in the temple or stirring up a crowd either in the synagogues or throughout the city. 13 Neither can they prove to you the charge that they now bring against me. 14 But this I admit to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our ancestors, believing everything laid down according to the law or written in the prophets. 15 I have a hope in God-a hope that they themselves also accept-that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous. 16 Therefore I do my best always to have a clear conscience toward God and all people. 17 Now after some years I came to bring alms to my nation and to offer sacrifices. 18 While I was doing this, they found me in the temple, completing the rite of purification, without any crowd or disturbance. 19 But there were some Jews from Asia-they ought to be here before you to make an accusation, if they have anything against me. 20 Or let these men here tell what crime they had found when I stood before the council, 21 unless it was this one sentence that I called out while standing before them, ‘It is about the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial before you today.’”

22 But Felix, who was rather well informed about the Way, adjourned the hearing with the comment, “When Lysias the tribune comes down, I will decide your case.” 23 Then he ordered the centurion to keep him in custody, but to let him have some liberty and not to prevent any of his friends from taking care of his needs. (Acts 24:1-23, NRSV)

On August 23, 2007 (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to August 17, Year One), comments were repeated from October 12, 2006 (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 5, Year Two), when comments were combined with some revision from October 7, 2004 (two years ago on Thursday of the week of the Sunday closest to October 5, Year Two) and from August 18, 2005 (Thursday of the week of the 13^th Sunday after Pentecost, Year One). The comments from August 23, 2007, are repeated here with some editing and supplement::

Paul gets what amounts to an initial hearing before Felix the governor. His Jewish accusers’ case for the prosecution is presented briefly (Acts 24:2-8) by an attorney ( rJhvtwr, hrētōr) named Tertullus (v. 1), seconded, as it were, by “the Jews” (v. 9). Tertullus’ opening flattery is apparently “the customary method of opening a speech with praise that is intended to attract the attention and sympathy of the one being addressed” (Christopher R. Matthews, NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on vv. 2-4). According to Tertullus, Paul is “a pestilent fellow, an agitator among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader (prwtostavthV, prōtostatēs) of the sect of the Nazarenes” (v. 5). “He even,” says Tertullus, “tried to profane the temple, and so we seized ( ejkrathvsamen, ekratēsamen, 1^st person plural verb) him” (v. 6). With the pronoun “we” here (in the verb inflection), Tertullus speaks for the Jews. Some manuscripts include added comments of the lawyer: “Other ancient authorities add and we would have judged him according to our law. 7 But the chief captain Lysias came and with great violence took him out of our hands, 8 commanding his accusers to come before you” (NRSV text note e on v. 6). The editors of the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament (3^rd ed., 1975) indicate their assessment of this textual variation as “D,” showing “that there is a very high degree of doubt concerning the reading selected for the text” (on Acts 24:6, cf. p. xiii). It’s possible that some later scribe elaborates a bit on the enormity of this false accusation. Christopher R. Matthews, referring to the “erroneous charge” that Paul “tried to profane the temple” (v. 6), says, “See 21:28-29 for this erroneous charge,” and Matthews adds, “and so we seized him omits any reference to the riot in 21:27-36” (op. cit., on v. 6). After reporting the lawyer’s speech, Luke adds that “the Jews also joined in the charge by asserting that all this was true” (v. 9).

When the governor gives Paul the floor (v. 10a), his opening recognition of the governor is more restrained: “I cheerfully make my defense, knowing that for many years you have been a judge over this nation” (v. 10b). Paul begins his own defense by claiming to be innocent (vv. 11-13); it has been “not more than twelve days” since his arrival in Jerusalem (v. 11). He was not “disputing with anyone in the temple or stirring up a crowd” (v. 12). He “shifts the topic dramatically” with a play on the word “confess” (oJmologevw, homologeo), translated "admit" in verse 14: “But this I admit to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our ancestors." "The Greek word . . . can refer to a judicial confession or to a confession of faith" (Beverly Roberts Gaventa, Harper-Collins Study Bible, 1^st ed., 1993, on Acts 24:14). Paul claims to believe “everything laid down according to the law or written in the prophets” (v. 14b), and to have a hope in the resurrection, “a hope that they themselves also accept” (v. 15). He strives “to have a clear conscience toward God and all people” (v. 16). His business in the temple was “alms to my nation” and “sacrifices” (v. 17), in particular, “the rite of purification” (v. 18). His accusers from Asia should be present to make accusation (v. 19), or the present accusers should report the “crime” found by the Jerusalem Council, which can only be his exclamation there, “It is about the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial before you today” (v. 21).

Felix postpones a decision until “Lysias the tribune comes down” (v. 22), and orders that Paul be kept “in custody” with some liberty (v. 23), “perhaps protective custody,” says Matthews (op. cit., on v. 23).

Luke 7:36-50

A Sinful Woman Forgiven

36 One of the Pharisees asked Jesus to eat with him, and he went into the Pharisee’s house and took his place at the table. 37 And a woman in the city, who was a sinner, having learned that he was eating in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster jar of ointment. 38 She stood behind him at his feet, weeping, and began to bathe his feet with her tears and to dry them with her hair. Then she continued kissing his feet and anointing them with the ointment. 39 Now when the Pharisee who had invited him saw it, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what kind of woman this is who is touching him-that she is a sinner.” 40 Jesus spoke up and said to him, “Simon, I have something to say to you.” “Teacher,” he replied, “speak.” 41 “A certain creditor had two debtors; one owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. 42 When they could not pay, he canceled the debts for both of them. Now which of them will love him more?” 43 Simon answered, “I suppose the one for whom he canceled the greater debt.” And Jesus said to him, “You have judged rightly.” 44 Then turning toward the woman, he said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has bathed my feet with her tears and dried them with her hair. 45 You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not stopped kissing my feet. 46 You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. 47 Therefore, I tell you, her sins, which were many, have been forgiven; hence she has shown great love. But the one to whom little is forgiven, loves little.” 48 Then he said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.” 49 But those who were at the table with him began to say among themselves, “Who is this who even forgives sins?” 50 And he said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.” (Luke 7:36-50, NRSV)

On October 14, 2007 (the Sunday closest to October 12, Year One), comments were repeated from October 12, 2006 (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 5, Year Two), comments that were also repeated on May 7, 2007 (Monday in the week of the Fifth Sunday of Easter, Year One) and were based on some earlier occasions. The comments are repeated again here with some adaptation.

There is a table in a separate file, The Anointing of Jesus, that includes parallel passages for accounts of the anointing of Jesus in each of the Gospels. In John it is the Anointing of Jesus by Mary at Bethany (Jn. 12:1-8), which was the reading for September 15, 2008 (Monday in the week of the Sunday closest to September 21, Year Two). In Matthew and Mark, the anointing is at the house of Simon the Leper (Mt. 26:6-13; Mk. 14:3-9). The anointing of Jesus by a woman in the house of a Pharisee (Luke 7:36-50), whose name was Simon (vv. 40, 43,44), is similar to the accounts in Matthew and Mark. Although the name Simon is the same, neither Matthew nor Mark refer to the woman as “a sinner” (Lk. 7:37), and in the accounts of Matthew and Mark, no one speaks derogatorily of her as does the Pharisee in Luke: “If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what kind of woman this is who is touching him–that she is a sinner” (v. 39). In Luke the emphasis is on the woman’s devotion (Lk. 7:44-46) and on forgiveness of her sins (v. 47), but in Matthew and Mark the emphasis is upon her anointing Jesus for burial (Mt. 26:12; Mk. 14:8). C. M. Tuckett notes that the women who came to anoint Jesus for burial on the first Easter day found the tomb empty (Mk. 16:1-8). “Hence Jesus’ body was never anointed after his death; the woman’s action here therefore anticipates his death by the prior anointing of his body” (The Oxford Bible Commentary, 2001, p. 915, on Mk. 14:3-9). Tuckett points to the woman’s true generosity. “The woman uses up a huge amount of oil at least in monetary terms (300 denarii was almost a year’s wages for a laborer). He also suggests that for Mark, the significance of the anointing related to “the idea that Jesus is a king” who “will be mocked as a king, and crucified as a royal pretender. . . . Jesus then is portrayed here as the anointed royal figure who as such, goes to his death” (Ibid.).

In Luke’s story, the woman uses an alabaster jar of anointment to wash Jesus' feet, and, in turn, in spite of Simon's objections, receives forgiveness (Lk. 7:48). Jesus explains with the story of a creditor who had two debtors. “One owed five hundred denarii [500 times the usual day's wage], and the other owed fifty” (v. 41). When the debts were cancelled, Jesus asks, “Which of them will love him more?” (v. 42). "I tell you, her sins, which were many, have been forgiven; hence she has shown great love" (v. 48). None of us should follow Simon's example. We cannot condemn the ones whom God has forgiven.

In the similar incident in John’s Gospel (Jn. 12:1-8), it is Mary, the sister of Lazarus who anoints, not Jesus’ head, but his feet (Jn. 12:3). In Matthew the disciples protest the “waste” (Mt. 26:8), thinking of what good could have been done with the money. “Why this waste? For this ointment could have been sold for a large sum, and the money given to the poor” (v. 9). In Mark this protest is by “some who were there” (Mk. 14:4). In John’s account, the protest of Mary’s action is by Judas Iscariot, “the one who was about to betray him” (Jn. 12:4), whom John calls “a thief” (v. 6). The incidents in Matthew, Mark and John all anticipate Jesus’ death, but Luke’s anointing incident comes much earlier in Jesus’ ministry, clearly in a different context.

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net