Habakkuk 1:1-4 (5-11) 12-2:1

On November 19, 2006 (the Sunday closest to November 16, Year Two), comments were repeated with revision and supplement from November 14, 2004, (the Sunday closest to November 16, Year Two). The comments are repeated here with further editing and supplement.

The book of Habakkuk is attributed to “the prophet Habakkuk” without further identification: “The oracle (xW!m01h, hammaśā’) that the prophet Habakkuk saw (hz!H!, chāzāh)” (Hab. 1:1). Another label is used later in the book: “A prayer (hl0!p9T4, t ^ephilāh) of the prophet Habakkuk according to Shigionoth (tOn yog4w9, šigyōnôth, cf. Ps. 7:1 Heb. = the unnumbered superscription NRSV)” (Heb. 3:1; cf. Zech. 9:1, discussed below). Other prophetic books include longer introductions, with identification of the prophet’s family and/or period by reigning kings (e.g. Hos. 1:1; Joel 1:1; Amos 1:1), but compare Obadiah, “The vision (NOzH!, chāzôn) of Obadiah” (Ob. 1:1), and Malachi, “An oracle (xW!m1, maśā’). The word of the LORD (hv!hy4 rb1d4, d^evar YHWH) to Israel by Malachi” (Mal. 1:1). Compare Zach. 9:1, where the heading “An Oracle” (xW!m1, maśā’) is followed by “the word of the LORD” (hv!hy4 rb1d4, d^evar YHWH). According to William L. Holladay, xW!m1 (maśā’) means “pronouncement” (A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 1971, 10^th corrected impression 1988, s.v. xW!m1, maśā’), which makes it surprising that Habakkuk “saw” (hz!H!, chāzāh) it. But, apparently, there is a close relationship between a prophet’s “vision” and “oracle,” as in Nahum: “An oracle (xW!m1, maśā’) concerning Nineveh. The book of the vision (NOzH!, chāzôn) of Nahum of Elkosh” (Nah. 1:1). Compare Amos: “The words of Amos (sOmf! yr2b4D9, divrê ‘āmôs) . . . which he saw (hz!H!, chāzāh) concerning Israel” (Amos 1:1).

According to Gregory Mobley, Habakkuk “can be dated to the late seventh century BCE on the basis of the reference to the Chaldeans (1:6), whose domination of the Near East began around 612. Such a date makes the book roughly contemporaneous with its predecessor, Nahum, and successor, Zephaniah” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, from the Introduction to Habakkuk). Ehud Ben Zvi raises some questions about dating the writing of the book in this period:

The most that can be said is that the book presumes the situation that began with the rise of Babylonian power around 612 BCE, and therefore is not earlier than that date. The text assumes a readership (and authorship) that was aware that Babylonia was the main power in the area at some point. For readerships that were also aware of the fall of the Babylonian (or Chaldean) empire–as any Persian period readership would be–the book is not so much about why justice does not emerge, but is rather about living under injustice. (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, in the Introduction to Habakkuk)

Based on the two labels, “oracle” (1:1) and “prayer” (3:1), indicated above, one might see here a simple two-part structure, but one can subdivide the first two chapters, as Ben Zvi does: “(a) Habakkuk’s first complaint (1:2-4), (b) The LORD’s response (1:5-11), (c) Habakkuk’s second complaint (1:12-17), and (d) Habakkuk’s report of the LORD’s response (ch. 2)” (ibid.). Mobley limits the LORD’s second response (2:2-4) and says, “the next section (2:5-20), consisting of five woes, is cast in classical prophetic style,” adding that it “is cast as the taunts addressed to Babylon by the very nations it had oppressed, once the cycle of divine judgment runs its full course (‘The cup in the LORD’s right hand will com around to you,’ 2:16)” (loc. cit.).

Have you ever wanted to cry out, “Help! God” or “Why, God?” That’s the way Habakkuk begins. “O LORD, how long shall I cry for help, / and you will not listen? / Or cry to you ‘Violence!’ / and you will not save?” (Hab. 1:2). “Why do you make me see wrongdoing,” asks the prophet, / and look for trouble?” (v. 3). He complains that “the law (hr!OT, tôrāh) becomes slack, / and justice never prevails,” adding that “the wicked surround the righteous–therefore judgement comes forth perverted” (v. 4). Citing the recent Jewish translation, “That is why decision fails / And justice never emerges; / For the villain hedges in the just man–Therefore judgment emerges deformed” (v. 4, NJPS 1985, 1999), Ehud Ben Zvi says, “That is why decision fails, [would] probably better [be], ‘therefore torah slacks.’ The word ‘torah’ here points to the divine teaching that maintains the order of the world, and that was later understood by traditional Jewish commentators as ‘the Torah’ ” (op. cit., on Hab. 1:4).

When we consider that, according to R. Lansing Hicks and Walter Brueggemann, Habakkuk lived “during the height of Babylonian power” (NOAB, 2^nd ed., 2006, Introduction to Habakkuk; cf. Mobley’s dating, cited above), we are not surprised at God’s reply: “Look at the nations, and see!” says the LORD. “Be astonished ! Be astounded! / For a work is being done in your days / that you would not believe if you were told” (v. 5). “I am rousing the Chaldeans,” he says, “that fierce and impetuous nation, / who march through the breadth of the earth / to seize dwellings not their own” (v. 6). They spread fear as they impose their own form of “justice.” “Dread and fearsome are they; / their justice and dignity proceed from themselves” (v. 7)

 They have horses “swifter than leopards, / more menacing than wolves at dusk” who “fly like eagles swift to devour” (v. 8). They “come for violence” and “gather captives like sand” (v. 9). Ancient historians and biblical scholars call Nebuchadrezzar’s Babylon the “Neo-Babylonian Empire,” the first being more than a millennium earlier, in the times of Hammurabi. Some in modern Iraq apparently had visions of a third Babylonian Empire (a fourth if we count the medieval Abbasid Empire). But the LORD’s response continues. “At kings they scoff, / and of rulers they make sport. / They laugh at every fortress, / and heap up earth to take it” (v. 10). In other words, they take fortresses and cities by building siege mounds. “Then,” adds the LORD, “they sweep by like the wind; / they transgress and become guilty; their / own might is their god!” (v. 11). On only hopes that, somehow, there can be an end to this devastating menace.

Habakkuk recognizes the violence, conquests and captivity brought by the Babylonians (vv. 9-11), as God’s judgment, and replies to the LORD’s response. “Are you not from of old, / O LORD my God, my Holy One? / You shall not die. / O LORD, you have marked them for judgment; / and you, O Rock, have established them for punishment.” (v. 12). For “O Rock, as a metaphor for God,” says Mobley, “see Deut. 32:4” (op. cit., on v. 12). The prophet reminds God of his character: “Your eyes are too pure to behold evil, / and you cannot look on wrongdoing” (v. 13a b), to which we may compare “For you are not a God who delights in wickedness; / evil will not sojourn with you” (Ps. 5a, b). Habakkuk points out the apparent inconsistency with a question, “why do you look on the treacherous, / and are silent when the wicked swallow / those more righteous than they?” (v. 13c, d, e). According to Mobley, this is “the heart of Habakkuk’s problem” (ibid., on Hab. 1:13, with ref. to Ps. 5:4-6). Ben Zvi, commenting on “While the one in the wrong devours / The one in the right?” (v. 13e, f NJPS 1985, 1999), says, “The meaning of the last two lines in the v. is something like ‘[why do you] remain silent when the wicked swallow those more righteous than they.’ The question is not why one who is absolutely righteous would suffer, but why the hierarchy of people in the spectrum of righteousness-wickedness runs opposite to that of power in the ‘real world’ ” (op. cit., on v. 13).

Habakkuk says that God has “made people like the fish of the sea, / like crawling things that have no ruler” (v. 14), in other words, vulnerable to the dangers posed by such as the Chaldeans. “This,” says Ben Zvi, “is a reversal of people’s role as described in Gen. 1:26, 28” (ibid., on v. 14). “The enemy,” says Habakkuk, “brings all of them [the fish-people] up with a hook; / he drags them out with his net, / he gathers them in his seine; / so he rejoices and exults” (v. 15). Then he proceeds to worship the instruments, the net and the seine, with which he inflicts God’s punishment, and thereby is enriched (v. 16). Habakkuk asks if the enemy will continue “emptying his net, / and destroying nations without mercy?” (v. 17). He will have an answer: “yet I will rejoice in the LORD” (3:18a), but that’s in Tuesday’s reading.

Philippians 3:13-4:1

13 Beloved, I do not consider that I have made it my own; but this one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, 14 I press on toward the goal for the prize of the heavenly call of God in Christ Jesus. 15 Let those of us then who are mature be of the same mind; and if you think differently about anything, this too God will reveal to you. 16 Only let us hold fast to what we have attained.

17 Brothers and sisters, join in imitating me, and observe those who live according to the example you have in us. 18 For many live as enemies of the cross of Christ; I have often told you of them, and now I tell you even with tears. 19 Their end is destruction; their god is the belly; and their glory is in their shame; their minds are set on earthly things. 20 But our citizenship is in heaven, and it is from there that we are expecting a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. 21 He will transform the body of our humiliation that it may be conformed to the body of his glory, by the power that also enables him to make all things subject to himself.4 1 Therefore, my brothers and sisters, whom I love and long for, my joy and crown, stand firm in the Lord in this way, my beloved. (Philippians 3:13-4:1, NRSV)

On April 3, 2007 (Tuesday of Holy Week, Year One), comments on Philippians 3:15-21 were combined, revised and adapted from comments of March 2, 2006 (Thursday in the week of the Last Sunday after the Epiphany, Year Two), when comments were used from March 22, 2005 (Tuesday of Holy Week, Year One), from September 10, 2005 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to September 7, Year One), and from comments of November 19, 2006 (the Sunday closest to November 16, Year Two), which were repeated from November 14, 2004, two years earlier (also the Sunday closest to November 16, Year Two). The revised comments are used here with editing and supplement:

Today’s reading, we might say, focuses on the central admonitions of Paul’s letter to the Philippians, a church that he founded that in return has supported his ministry elsewhere (cf. Phil. 1:5-7; 4:10-20). Highlights of the letter include the “hymn” on the humiliation and exaltation of Christ (2:6-11), which Paul presents using the example of Christ’s humility as an example for the Philippians. “Let the same mind be in you,” he says, “that was also in Christ Jesus” (2:5). After reports related to his fellow workers, Timothy (2:19-24) and Epaphroditus (vv. 25-30), Paul turns attention to his opponents, Judaizers (3:2-4). But Paul then reviews his own reasons for commitment to Christ–though his own Jewish credentials were superb (vv. 4-6), these “gains [he] had,” he says, “these I have come to regard as loss because of Christ” (v. 7). Paul emphasizes this contrast. He regards “everything as loss because of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus [his] Lord” (v. 8a); his goal is to “be found in him [i.e., in Christ], not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but one that comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God based on faith” (v. 9). “I want to know Christ,” he says, “and the power of his resurrection and the sharing of his sufferings by becoming like him in his death, if somehow I may attain the resurrection from the dead” (vv. 10-11; cf. Rom. 6:3-11). Paul admits that he has not yet reached this capstone of his spiritual experience. “Not that I have already obtained this or have already reached the goal (teteleivwmai, teteleiōmai); but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own” (v. 12).

In today’s reading proper, Paul continues this account of his spiritual journey, so to speak. “Beloved, I do not consider that I have made it my own; but this one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the heavenly call of God in Christ Jesus” (vv. 13-14). An unbiased observer might suppose that Paul’s magnificent achievements to this point were more than enough, but he says he has not “already reached the goal” (teteleivwmai, teteleiōmai) (v. 12), “either were already perfect” (v. 12 AV/KJV). And he admonishes the Philippians. “Let those of us then who are mature (tevleioi, teleioi, ‘perfect’ AV/KJV) be of the same mind (tou:to fronw:men, touto phronōmen, the same phrase as in 2:5); and if you think differently (ti eJtevrwV fronei:te, to heterōs phroneite, the same verb) about anything, this too God will reveal to you” (3:15).¹ It’s important to keep one’s eye, one’s mind, on the goal, “the prize of the heavenly call of God in Christ Jesus” (v. 14). And with that, we must “hold fast to what we have attained” (v. 16).

¹Teleiovw (Teleioō), the verb, and the related adjective tevleioV (teleios) have different meanings in different contexts according to Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich [BDAG], A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3^rd ed., 2000 (cf. the 2^nd ed., BAGD, 1979). The verb, for example, means “(1) to complete an activity, complete, bring to an end, finish, accomplish” as in John 4:34; 17:4, and other places. “(2) to overcome or supplant an imperfect state of things by one that is free from objection, bring to an end, bring to its goal/accomplishment,” as of Jesus in Heb. 2:10, and other places. The fourth subheading here (d) is “of the perfection of upright persons who have gone on before, passive (Wsd. 4:13; Philo, Leg. All. 3, 74 . . .). Another subheading (e) is to “make [someone or something] perfect” as in Heb. 10:1; 7:19; 9:9; perhaps 10:14. “For Phil 3:12,” says the Lexicon, see no. 3, below. “(3) As a term of mystery religions consecrate, initiate, passive be consecrated, become a tevleioV [teleios] Phil 3:12 (though meaning 2ea [i.e., the one given above] is also probable” (s.v. teleiovw, teleioō).

The meanings of the adjective tevleioV (teleios) are comparable: “(1) pertaining to meeting the highest standard–(a) of things, perfect ” and “(b) of persons who are fully up to standard in a certain respect and not satisfied with half-way measures perfect, complete, expert . . . Esther is teleiva kata; pivstin [teleia kata pistin, ‘perfect according to faith/faithfulness’] 1 Cl 55:6. Jesus became tevleioV a[nqrwpoV [teleios anthrōpos] perfect human Ignatius Sm 4:2” (ibid., s.v. tevleioV, teleios). “(2) pertaining to being mature, full-grown, mature, adult” as in Eph. 4:13, 1 Cor. 14:20. “(3) pertaining to being a cult initiate, initiated. As a technical term of the mystery religions, tevleioV [teleios] refers to one initiated into mystic rites. . . . Phil. 3:15 and Col. 1:28 probably belong here” (s.v. tevleioV, teleios).

The suggestion that the meaning for Philippians 3:15 and Colossians 1:28 is being initiated into a mystic rite depends too heavily on the religious language of the Greco-Roman pagan religions; whereas, there are good examples of the use of teleios by the Septuagint to translate Mym9T! (tāmîm, “whole, entire; intact; blameless” and the like), and the related terms, MTo ( tōm, “perfection, completeness”), MT! (tām, “complete, right, sound, normal”). See, for example, Gen. 6:9 (Mym9T!, tāmîm), Ex. 12:5 (Mym9T!, tāmîm), Deut. 18:13 (Mym9T!, tāmîm), 2 Kgs. 22:26 (Mym9T!, tāmîm). Paul, trained as a rabbi, spoke the language of the Hebrew Bible, not the language of the Grecco-Roman mystery religions.

Becoming “mature/perfect” (teleios) is a stage (process?) along the way. Paul’s application in verses fifteen and sixteen has been outlined by Gordon D. Fee:

(1) A direct application: Therefore

As many of us as are teleioi, this let us “think” (phronōmen)

            (2) A qualification: And if you “think” (phroneite) anything differently,

This also God will reveal to you.

(3) A rejoinder (to the qualification):

In any case, unto whatever we have attained [already, is implied],

[let us] conform to the same. (Philippians, NICNT, 1995, p. 354)

Although Christ is clearly the primary example (2:5, cf. vv. 6-11), it now becomes explicit that Paul is presenting himself as an example for the Philippian believers: “Brothers and sisters, join in imitating me” (3:17a). But he also includes model Christians, fellow workers and church leaders apparently, as examples, “and observe those who live according to the example you have in us” (v. 17b). These would include many who are his own converts, or the results of his ministry, and are long-term supporters of his ministry. Whereas, as noted, in chapter 2, where Christ was the example, who “emptied himself, / taking the form of a slave (2:7), to be exalted later (vv. 9-11), so Paul’s direction to imitate him includes his leaving behind earthly credentials (3::5-8), to focus on knowing Christ (vv. 8, 10) “and the power of his resurrection.” He wants to share Christ’s sufferings and death “if somehow I may attain the resurrection from the dead” (v. 11).

In contrast to the example of Paul and leading Christian believers, Paul reminds the Philippians of some bad examples. “For many live as enemies of the cross of Christ; I have often told you of them, and now I tell you even with tears” (v. 18). These people are focused on this present world and the satisfaction of desires, if not immediate desires, at least the things related to their life in this present world. “Their end is destruction; their god is the belly; and their glory is in their shame; their minds are set on earthly things” (v. 19). While all unbelievers probably don’t fit this description of gross materialism, to the exclusion of all spiritual values, these bad examples certainly were not focused on attaining “the resurrection” through faith in Christ (vv. 11-12).

In contrast to that earthly mindset, Paul says, “our citizenship is in heaven, and it is from there that we are expecting a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ” (v. 20). Christ, says Paul, “will transform the body of our humiliation that it may be conformed to the body of his glory, by the power that also enables him to make all things subject to himself” (v. 21). And so he concludes with an admonition to all. “Therefore, my brothers and sisters, whom I love and long for, my joy and crown, stand firm in the Lord in this way, my beloved” (4:1)

Matthew 23:13-24

13 “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you lock people out of the kingdom of heaven. For you do not go in yourselves, and when others are going in, you stop them. 15 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cross sea and land to make a single convert, and you make the new convert twice as much a child of hell as yourselves.

16 “Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘Whoever swears by the sanctuary is bound by nothing, but whoever swears by the gold of the sanctuary is bound by the oath.’ 17 You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold or the sanctuary that has made the gold sacred? 18 And you say, ‘Whoever swears by the altar is bound by nothing, but whoever swears by the gift that is on the altar is bound by the oath.’ 19 How blind you are! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred? 20 So whoever swears by the altar, swears by it and by everything on it; 21 and whoever swears by the sanctuary, swears by it and by the one who dwells in it; 22 and whoever swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God and by the one who is seated upon it.

23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill, and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. It is these you ought to have practiced without neglecting the others. 24 You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel! (Matthew 23:13-24, NRSV)

On July 7, 8 and 9, 2008 (Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday in the week of the Sunday closest to July 6, Year Two), the Gospel reading was from Matthew, chapter 23, in three parts. Comments then were based on earlier comments as noted there. The parallel passages, mainly from Luke were presented in separate files on Monday and Tuesday, but the table of the last two woes was incorporated in the comments for Wednesday. Also there were separate files listing the woes in Matthew and Luke for comparison.

Today’s reading mainly corresponds to the reading for July 8, 2008, Tuesday in that series. Comments are repeated here from that date, and parallel passages relevant to today’s reading will be found in the separate file, Woes to the Scribes and Pharisees, Part 2. The complete list of woes will be found in the separate file, Woes List.

In Matthew, chapter 23, Jesus presents a severe denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees. Jesus pronounces seven woes (Oujai; de; uJmi:n or Oujai; uJmi:n, Ouai de hymin or Ouai hymin, “Woe to you [plural]”) against the scribes and Pharisees. Each woe is introduced with these words: “But woe to you, scribes (grammatei:V, grammateis) and Pharisees, hypocrites (uJpokritaiv, hypocritai)!” (Mt. 23:13, 15, 16 [to “blind guides” = “scribes and Pharisees], 23, 25, 27, 29). Elwyn E. Tilden and Bruce M. Metzger remind us that “the denunciations are an indictment of some, not all, Pharisees” (NOAB, 2^nd ed., 1991, 1994, on Mt. 23:13). I emphasize the words, “not all.”

In Luke’s parallel passages to these readings from Matthew (Lk. 20:45-47; 11:37-54), we find six woes and other comparable denunciations. But the context is different. Whereas Jesus’ discourse, including the seven woes, comes after a series of controversy debates with the Jewish leaders in Jerusalem, from the Pharisees’ question about Paying Tribute to the Emperor (Mt. 22:15-22) through Jesus question about whether the Messiah is David’s son or David’s lord (Mt. 22:41-46), in Luke the six woes are spoken by Jesus along with other criticisms, when he is an invited dinner guest in the home of a Pharisee (Lk. 11:37). And, whereas the seven woes of Jesus in Matthew are directed at the “scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites,” the first three woes in Luke are directed at the Pharisees–in the home of a Pharisee, no less! But the remaining three, responding to a lawyer’s complaint (Lk. 11:45), are directed at “you lawyers (nomikoiv, nomikoi)” (vv. 46, 52, cf. 47). In Luke 20:45-47, Jesus warns about the scribes (v. 45), in a context parallel to Mark (Mk. 12:37b-40).

Four woes from the series of seven in Matthew are included in today’s reading (five of eight if verse 14 were to be included). Of these seven woes, four have parallel woes in Luke’s version, two have parallel statements in Luke not in the form of “woes,” and one, about making converts–a particularly Jewish concern (Mt. 23:15)–has no parallel in content in the Gospels. Parallel relationships between Matthew’s woes and other denunciations are indicated in the table in the separate file, Woes List, as noted above. The woes and other denunciations are listed in the order of their appearance in the respective Gospels (columns 1 and 4), with cross-references by woe number (1-6 or -7) and by letter characters (A to D) for selected denunciations.

In the first woe, Jesus addresses the key issue. Those who “sit on Moses’ seat” and whose teaching should be followed (Mt. 23:2) are in fact preventing their people from realizing the desired effect of this teaching. “But woe to you, scribes (grammatei:V, grammateis) and Pharisees, hypocrites (uJpokritaiv, hypocritai)! For you lock people out of the kingdom of heaven. For you do not go in yourselves, and when others are going in, you stop them” (Mt. 23:13). In Luke’s version of this saying, Jesus says, “Woe to you lawyers (nomikoiv, nomikoi)! For you have taken away the key (kleivV. kleis) of knowledge; you did not enter yourselves, and you hindered those who were entering” (Lk. 11:52). As one might expect, the term “lawyer” (oJ nomikovV, ho nomikos), a substantive (noun) use of the adjective which “pertains to being well informed about law, learned in the law [and so refers to a] legal expert, jurist, lawyer (Strabo . . . Epictetus . . . ).” The term is used of Titus 3:13 of “a certain Zenas the nomikovV (nomikos), but it is not clear whether he was expert in Mosaic or non-Mosaic (in the latter case most probably Roman) law.–Elsewhere in the NT only once in Mt. and several times in Lk., always of those expert in Mosaic law” (Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich [BDAG], A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3^rd ed., 2000, s.v. (nomikovV, nomikos). Although Matthew’s term “scribe” (grammateuvV, grammateus) has a somewhat different range of meanings, in this context it can be considered a synonym of Luke’s term “lawyer” (nomikovV, nomikos). The former can refer to the “chief executive officer of a governmental agency, secretary (of state), clerk” as in Acts 19:35, “the town clerk” who “quieted the crowd” stirred up by the silversmiths who protested Paul’s stand against idolatry, and “dismissed the assembly” (v. 41). But it usually refers to “an expert in matters related to divine revelation,” that is, “specialists in the law of Moses: experts in the law, scholars versed in the law, scribes” (BDAG, s.v. grammatei:V, grammateis). The Lexicon adds that the scribes are “mentioned together with high priests . . . with whom and the elders (often referred to in the same context) their representatives formed the Sanhedrin).” If there is a difference in connotation here, Matthew’s context, Jesus denouncing the religious leadership in Jerusalem as compared with Jesus being a Pharisee’s dinner guest (cf. Lk. 11:37), fits the connotations of “scribe” ( grammatei:V, grammateis) indicated above. We also note that in the Pharisee’s home, according to Luke, Jesus denounces the Pharisees and the lawyers, but in the context of the final confrontations in Jerusalem, according to Luke, Jesus denounces the scribes.

Luke’s word “key” (kleivV. kleis) in this saying (Lk. 11:52), occurs four times in Revelation, but elsewhere in the New Testament only once in Matthew, where Jesus says to Peter, “I will give you the keys (klei:daV, kleidas) of the kingdom of heaven . . .” (Mt. 16:19). It is defined in a literal sense, as one might expect, as “something used for locking, key,” but in a figurative sense, as “a means of acquiring access to something, key, for this passage in Luke. Matthew uses a verbal equivalent, “for you lock people out of the kingdom of heaven” (kleivete th;n basileian tw:n oujranw:n e[mprosqen tw:n ajnqrwvpwn, kleiete tēn basileian tōn ouranōn emprosthen tōn anthrōpōn) (Mt. 23:13), literally, “you close up the kingdom of heaven in front of human beings,” or as we might put it, “you slam the door in their faces!” “In Lk. (11:52),” says Krister Stendahl, “this logion gives the climax to the criticism of the Pharisees, and that in good grounds. In Mt. it is the first of seven ‘woes’ ” (Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, 1962, reprinted 1972, sec. 691d, p. 792, on Mt. 23:13-14). According to C. G. Montefiore,

This [Mt. 23:13] probably means that the Rabbis, by their ritualistic, outward, casuistic, perverse interpretation of the Law had made it impossible for those who followed, or sought to follow, their teaching to ‘enter the Kingdom,’ i.e. to be ‘saved.’ Another view is that the Rabbis prevented Jews from becoming Christians. In this case the ‘Kingdom’ is the Christian community. A third view is that the Rabbis did all they could to hinder the preaching of Jesus: they refused to listen themselves, and they tried to prevent others from listening. (The Synoptic Gospels, Edited with an Introduction and a Commentary, vol. 2, Library of Biblical Studies, 1927, reprinted 1968, p. 300, on Mt. 23:13)

The next verse (Mt. 23:14), would, if it were original within Matthew’s text, bring the total of “woes” from seven to eight, as noted above. But given its absence from many early witnesses, it is likely a later copyist’s insertion based on the parallels in Mark 12:40 and Luke 20:47. Bruce M. Metzger sums up the thinking of the Committee that edited the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament, 3^rd ed., 1975, as follows:

That ver. 14 [i.e., Mt. 23:14] is an interpolation derived from the parallel in Mk. 12:40 or Lk. 20:47 is clear (a) from its absence in the earliest and best authorities of the Alexandrian, the Western, and the Caesarean types of text, and (b) from the fact that the witnesses which include the passage have it in different places, either after ver. 13 (so the Textus Receptus) or before ver. 13. (A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament; A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament, [third edition]), 1971, p. 60, on Mt. 23:13)

Mark 12:40, worded the same in Luke 20:47, except that the finite verb “say [long] prayers,” proseuvcontai, proseuchontai, replaces the participle“saying [long] prayers,” proseucovmenoi, proseuchomenoi (a difference not reflected in the NRSV, nor in TNIV), is used by a later copyist of Matthew, who uses Matthew’s formula, “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!” to construct an added woe.

As noted above, Matthew’s woe about going to extreme lengths to make converts has no parallel in Luke. “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cross sea and land to make a single convert (proshvlutoV, prosēlytos), and you make the new convert twice as much a child of hell as yourselves” (Mt. 23:15). According to Stendahl, Judaism was a missionary religion in the time of Jesus, but only in areas where there was already a Jewish synagogue. A proselyte [convert] has taken a step beyond the so-called ‘men who feared God’ (e.g., Ac. 10:2; 13:16) and become circumcised. The verse may have the same problem in mind which Paul encounters among the ‘Judaisers’ (e.g. Gal. 5:2ff.) (loc. cit.). According to Montefiore, this is “a famous verse. The charge is probably exaggerated and inaccurate. The Palestinian Rabbis were, on the whole, not particularly favourable to proselytes. The idea is that the convert out-Herods Herod. He is more ‘outward,’ more intent on ceremonies and more lax in morals, than the Rabbis themselves” (op. cit., p. 300, on Mt. 23:15).

The paragraph that contains Matthew’s next woe (Mt. 23:16-22) is the longest, except for the introductory paragraph (vv. 1-12, yesterday’s reading, with no woes), and the paragraph that presents the last woe (vv. 29-36, in tomorrow’s reading. “Woe to you, blind guides,” says Jesus, “who say, ‘Whoever swears by the sanctuary is bound by nothing, but whoever swears by the gold of the sanctuary is bound by the oath’ ” (Mt. 23:16). This woe departs from the structure of Matthew’s other six woes, “Woe [or ‘But woe, v. 13] to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! (vv. 13, 15, 23, 25, 27, 29)” But the words, “Woe to you, blind guides,” clearly imply what the other woes make explicit,” and they, with the extended paragraph (vv. 16-22), break the monotony, somewhat, of the repeated formula. The “blind guides” epithet, but not the phrase “woe to you, blind guides,” is repeated in conjunction with the next woe (Mt. 23:24). The blind guides metaphor also occurs in other contexts, for example, “Let them alone; they are blind guides of the blind” (Mt. 15:14, in a Markan context on the “tradition[s] of the elders,” Mk. 7:3, cf. vv. 1-23), where it is directed against the Pharisees (cf. Mt. 15:12). Luke also uses the “blind guide” idea in a context of teaching for Jesus’ followers, the Sermon on the Plain (Lk. 6:20-49). It comes as a parable within a section on judging others, vv. 37-42, “Can a blind person guide a blind person? Will not both fall into a pit?” (Lk. 6:39).

“You blind fools (mwroi; kai; tufloiv, mōroi kai typhloi, lit. ‘fools and blind’)!” says Jesus, according to Matthew, and continues with a series of things by which one should, or should not, swear” (v. 17a, cf. vv.22). On the issue of swearing “by the sanctuary,” or “by the gold of the sanctuary” (Mt. 23:16), we may compare Jesus admonition, “Do not swear at all (Mt. 5:34; cf. Jas. 5:12; cf. also Lev. 19:12; Num. 30:2; Deut. 23:21). We may keep in mind Jesus’ injunction not to swear at all as a way to avoid the dilemmas about what to swear by and what not to swear by, the altar or the gift (Mt. 23:18-19), by the sanctuary, or by “the one who dwells in it” (vv. 20-21), that is, by God? But compare what follows: “by heaven . . . by the throne of God and by the one who is seated upon it” (v. 22). According to Stendahl, “The intention behind the rulings of the scribes here under criticism was a good one: they were against insincere oaths and this led them to discourage oaths by the most holy things, allowing such by what appeared more removed from the centre of holiness. Such rulings are ridiculed here by the hermeneutic rule ‘if the lesser then also the greater’ ” (op. cit., sec. 691e, p. 792, on vv. 16-22). If Stendahl suggests good intentions behind the distinctions criticized here, Montefiore apparently sees outrageous criticism of Judaism here.

Jesus calls his opponents ‘fools,’ in spite of his teaching in the Sermon on the Mount (v, 22). Can the inconsistency be got over by the ingenious remark, ‘It shews that not the word but the spirit in which it is uttered is what matters’ (McNeile). If R. Akiba had said what we find in [Mt. 5:]22, and if he had called his Christian contemporaries ‘fools,’ I wonder if a similar excuse for him would have been suggested by the same commentator! (op. cit., on Mt. 23:17)

In Jesus’ next woe, he accuses the scribes and Pharisees of focusing on trivial matters to the neglect of major religious concerns, for they “tithe mint, dill, and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith” (v. 23b, cf. Lk. 11:42, with “mint and rue and every herb”). These they “ought to have practiced without neglecting the others” (v. 23c). J. Andrew Overman sums this up as follows: “The point of the denunciation seems to be that in trying to carry out the law requiring tithes of produce even for such tiny herba, the Pharisees miss the important requirements of the Law (see Mic. 6:8)” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on Mt. 23:23). Jesus repeats his reference to blind guides. “You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel!” (Mt. 23:24, cf. v. 16). According to Stendahl, “The Talmud’s ‘he that kills a flea on the Sabbath is as guilty as if he killed a camel’ (Shab. 12a) gives the background to this saying, which is more natural in Aramaic where ‘camel’ and ‘gnat’ are similar in pronunciation” (op. cit., sec. 691f, pp. 792-793, on v. 24). Who among us, we might ask, has not, at times, been confused about values and priorities?

More woes follow, but today’s reading selects these for our consideration. We need to remind ourselves that Jesus, though his criticism is harsh and severe, was indicting a few leaders, not all Jews then–and certainly not all Jews since then. One can quote criticism of Pharisees by Pharisees from the Rabbinic writings. It may be that Matthew records these denunciations of hypocrisy pronounced by Jesus against Pharisees as warnings against similar attitudes within his own Christian, probably Jewish-Christian, community.

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net