Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) 36:1-17

A Prayer for God's People

36:1 Have mercy upon us, O God of all,

2 and put all the nations in fear of you.

3 Lift up your hand against foreign nations

and let them see your might.

4 As you have used us to show your holiness to them,

so use them to show your glory to us.

5 Then they will know, as we have known,

that there is no God but you, O Lord.

6 Give new signs, and work other wonders;

7 make your hand and right arm glorious.

8 Rouse your anger and pour out your wrath;

9 destroy the adversary and wipe out the enemy.

10 Hasten the day, and remember the appointed time,

and let people recount your mighty deeds.

11 Let survivors be consumed in the fiery wrath,

and may those who harm your people meet destruction.

12 Crush the heads of hostile rulers

who say, “There is no one but ourselves.”

13 Gather all the tribes of Jacob,

16 and give them their inheritance, as at the beginning.

17 Have mercy, O Lord, on the people called by your name,

on Israel, whom you have named your firstborn, (Ecclesiasticus 36:1-17, NRSV)

On November 5, 2006 (the Sunday closest to November 2, Year Two), comments were repeated with revision and supplement from October 31, 2004, two years ago (Monday of the week of the Sunday closest to November 2, Year Two); they are repeated here with some editing and supplement:

In Ecclesiasticus, chapter 36, Ben Sira offers "a prayer for the deliverance and restoration of Israel" (Bruce M. Metzger & Roland E. Murphy, NOAB, 2^nd ed., 1994, on Sirach 36:1-22 NRSV). But for one who compares different versions and/or translations, the verse numbers here can be confusing. The following table may help:

In the above table, numbers like “1a” and “1b” represent the first and second lines of a two line verse. Some would call these “half lines” or hemistichs (2 hemistichs = 1 stichos, stivcoV , “a line of writing, a verse”). The Hebrew verse numbering here is based on The Wisdom of Ben Sira; portions of the Book of Ecclesiasticus from Hebrew Manuscripts in the Cairo Genizah Collection, 1899, available on the Internet by entering “Ecclesiasticus Hebrew Cairo Genizah” in the Google advanced search (showing this search engine address: http://books.google.com/books?id=F2gVAAAAYAAJ&dq=Ecclesiasticus+Hebrew+Cairo+Genizah&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=wOwz5VkKMT&sig=j5i4_ZzBNoHc5HF0g4-s96VP3u4&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPR3,M1; it would be simpler to do your own search as indicated above; accessed Nov. 1, 2008.)

Ben Sira prays, “Have mercy upon us, O God of all, / and put all the nations in fear of you. / Lift up your hand against foreign nations / and let them see your might" (vv. 1-3 NRSV = vv. 1-2 LXX), with particular reference to the Seleucids (i.e. Hellenistic Syrians), who took control of Israel from the Ptolemies (i.e. Hellenistic Egyptians) after 198 B.C. Ben Sira continues by stating that the Lord has used Israel to show the nations his holiness, and petitioning that God will “use them to show your glory to us” (v. 4 NRSV = v. 3 LXX). In this way, the truth of Israel’s monotheism will become known. “Then they will know, as we have known / that there is no God but you, O Lord” (v. 5 NRSV = v. 4 LXX). The “new signs” and “other wonders” he requests, which will “make your hand and right arm glorious” (vv. 6-7 NRSV = v. 5 LXX = v. 6 Heb. and KJV Apoc.), which Burton Mack calls “common shorthand allusions to the exodus story of deliverance from Egypt (The HarperCollins Study Bible, 1^st ed., 1993, on Sirach 36:6-7), are to be expressed as the Lord is asked to “Rouse your anger and pour out your wrath; / destroy the adversary and wipe out the enemy” (vv. 8-9 NRSV = v. 6 LXX = v. 7 Heb. and KJV Apoc.).

Ben Sira’s prayer asks God to “Hasten the day, and remember the appointed time, / and let people recount your mighty deeds” (v. 10 NRSV). Verse seven is the equivalent verse in the Septuagint, rendered as verse eight in the King James Version Apocrypha and the Hebrew, “Make the time (kairovV, kairos, cf. dfvm [df2Om, mô‘ēd], Heb.) short, remember the covenant (oJrkismovV, horkismos), and let them declare thy wonderful works.” Harold C. Washington comments, “The appointed time [refers to] the awaited deliverance from domination by foreign rulers” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on Sirach 36:10 NRSV). Compare Paul’s statements that “the appointed time (kairovV, kairos) has grown short” (1 Cor. 7:29, and his reference to “a plan for the fullness of time” (eijV oijkonomivan tou: plhrwvmatoV tw:n kairw:n, eis oikonomian tou plērōmatos tōn kairōn, Eph. 1:10). In a similar reference in Galatians, Paul uses a different word for “time”: “But when the fullness of time (to; plhvrwma tou: crovnou, to plērōma tou chronou) had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law” (Gal. 4:4).

We may infer that early Christians applied Jewish expectations of the time of deliverance from their enemies to their own understanding that in Christ the times of deliverance were being fulfilled; the powers of darkness were defeated and the time of salvation had come. But Ben Sira’s prayer continues in terms of Israel’s deliverance from their enemies. “Let survivors be consumed in the fiery wrath,” he prays, with reference of course to survivors among the enemy, “and may those who harm your people meet destruction” (v. 11 NRSV = v. 8 LXX = v. 9 KJV Apoc.). “Crush the heads of hostile rulers / who say, ‘There is no one but ourselves’” (v. 12 NRSV = v 9 LXX = v. 10 Heb. and KJV Apoc.). At this point Ben Sira’s attention turns from the enemy to Israel itself. “Gather all the tribes of Jacob,” he prays, “and give them their inheritance, as at the beginning” (vv. 13, 16 NRSV = v. 10 LXX = v. 11 Heb. and KJV Apoc.). According to the NRSV text note e, “Owing to a dislocation in the Greek Mss. of Sirach, the verse numbers 14 and 15 are not used in chapter 36, though no text is missing” (cf. the table above). By “their inheritance,” expressed with a Greek verb (kataklhronomevw, kataklēronomeō, in the aorist imperative form; cf. Heb. vlHntyv [UlH3n1t4T9 tithnach^alû]), Ben Sira refers to the allotment of land to the tribes in the Book of Joshua. The prayer continues, but the reading concludes, “Have mercy, O Lord, on the people called by your name, / on Israel, whom you have named your firstborn” (v. 17 NRSV = v. 11 LXX = v. 12 Heb. and KJV Apoc.).

The prayer was answered to some extent a few years later, after the Maccabean Revolt, when Israel would be free and independent again for a few decades, until General Pompey and the Romans took control of them in 63 B.C.

Zephaniah 1:1-6 (Presbyterian and Lutheran traditions–This passage is not included in the Daily Office Lectionary of the Book of Common Prayer.)

1:1 The word of the LORD that came to Zephaniah son of Cushi son of Gedaliah son of Amariah son of Hezekiah, in the days of King Josiah son of Amon of Judah.

The Coming Judgment on Judah

2 I will utterly sweep away everything

from the face of the earth, says the LORD.

3 I will sweep away humans and animals;

I will sweep away the birds of the air

and the fish of the sea.

I will make the wicked stumble.

I will cut off humanity

from the face of the earth, says the LORD.

4 I will stretch out my hand against Judah,

and against all the inhabitants of Jerusalem;

and I will cut off from this place every remnant of Baal

and the name of the idolatrous priests;

5 those who bow down on the roofs

to the host of the heavens;

those who bow down and swear to the LORD,

but also swear by Milcom;

6 those who have turned back from following the LORD,

who have not sought the LORD or inquired of him. (Zephaniah 1:1-6, NRSV)

The following comments are repeated here with editing and supplement from November 5, 2006 (the Sunday closest to November 2, Year Two):

Zephaniah is called the “son of Cushi son of Gedaliah son of Amariah son of Hezekiah,” apparently the king of Judah in the times of Isaiah. According to Ehud Ben Zvi, “Some interpreters maintained that this Hezekiah was the famous king of Judah (Ibn Ezra, but contrast with Radak). Again,” says Ben Zvi, “such a claim is not advanced in the text” (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, on Zeph. 1:1). Zephaniah’s work is dated “in the days of King Josiah” (Zephaniah 1:1). Due to “Zephaniah’s condemnation of practices prohibited by Deuteronomy ([Zeph.] 1:4-6, 8-9, 12; 3:1-13),”Gregory Mobley infers that “he prophesied before Josiah’s reforms of 621 BCE (2 Kings 23)” and dates the oracles “perhaps, to 630-620 . . . roughly contemporaneous with those in Nahum” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, in the Introduction to Zephaniah). Ben Zvi generally agrees:

Many scholars attribute much of the book of Zephaniah to the monarchic period, but they agree that some portion of the book dates to the postmonarchic period. It is worth stressing that the division of the text of the book between words that go back to Zephaniah or monarchic times and words that come from a later time is nowhere made in the book. Moreover, the usual association between supposedly earlier sections and increased authoritative status (and supposedly later and less authoritative status) is contrary to the basic claim of the book, namely that it is in its entirety the Lord’s word, all equal in value. (op. cit., in the Introduction to Zephaniah)

Following the prose introduction in verse one, Zephaniah presents an oracle of judgment with broad, even universal scope. “I will utterly sweep away everything / from the face of the earth, says the LORD. / I will sweep away humans and animals; / I will sweep away the birds of the air / and the fish of the sea” (vv. 2, 3a, b, c). The LORD “will make the wicked stumble. / [He] will cut off humanity / from the face of the earth” (v. 3d, e, f). Mobley sees here “the scope of the destruction and the echoes of Genesis (cf. 1:2 with Gen. 7:23),” and adds that “the sequence humans, animals, birds, fish reverses the order of Gen. 1:20-26), [thus suggesting] the undoing of creation (cf. Jer. 4:23-26)” (op. cit., on Zeph. 1:2-3). According to Ben Zvi, “the translation [he follows the recent Jewish translation, NJPS 1985, 1999, similar here to the NRSV] suggests a universal scenario of destruction. The Heb. is more ambiguous. It can certainly be understood in such a way, but also as pointing to the total destruction of a particular area” (op. cit., on vv. 2-3).

But the oracle turns specifically against Judah. “I will stretch out my hand against Judah, / and against all the inhabitants from Jerusalem” (v. 4a, b). The LORD “will cut off . . . every remnant of Baal,” he says, “and the name of the idolatrous priests” (v. 4c, d). The NRSV text note a says, “Compare Gk: Heb. the idolatrous priests (Myr9m!K4h1, hakk^emārîm) with the priests (Myn9h3Koh1, hakkōh^anîm). A rm@Ko (kōmer) is a “priest (of pagan gods)” (William L. Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 1971, 10^th corrected impression, 1988, s.v. rm@Ko, kōmer). The prophet calls these priests “those who bow down on the roofs / to the host of the heavens; / those who bow down and swear to the LORD, / but also swear by Milcom” (v. 5). The NRSV text note b on “Milcom” says, “Gk Mss Syr Vg: Heb. Malcam [MK!l4m1 , malkām] (or, their king),” which could well represent an attempt at amelioration. According to Mobley, they have worshiped “the host of heaven,” which means“astral deities” (op. cit., on v. 5), and though they “swear to the LORD,” they “also swear by Milcom, the “chief deity of Ammon” (ibid.).

These, apparently still the “idolatrous priests,” are further defined as “those who have turned back from following the LORD, / who have not sought the LORD or inquired of him” v. 6). In contrast to these priests, when the Amalekites burned Ziklag, before David pursued them and rescued their captives, he directed the priest Abiathar to “Bring me the ephod,” which Abiathar did, and “David inquired of the LORD, ‘Shall I pursue this band?’” And the LORD answered, “Pursue; for you shall surely overtake and shall surely rescue” (1 Sam. 30:7-8).

1 Corinthians 12:27-13:13

27 Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. 28 And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers; then deeds of power, then gifts of healing, forms of assistance, forms of leadership, various kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? 31 But strive for the greater gifts. And I will show you a still more excellent way.

13:1 If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give away all my possessions, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.

4 Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant 5 or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; 6 it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. 7 It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

8 Love never ends. But as for prophecies, they will come to an end; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will come to an end. 9 For we know only in part, and we prophesy only in part; 10 but when the complete comes, the partial will come to an end. 11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways. 12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known. 13 And now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love. (1 Corinthians 12:27-13:13, NRSV)

The following comments are repeated here from March 7 and 8, 2008 (Friday and Saturday in the week of the Fourth Sunday of Lent, Year Two), comments that were based on earlier comments as noted there.

Earlier, Paul has appealed to the Corinthian Christians to be in unity and harmony within their diversity of gifts, using the analogy of the body that is “one and has many members (1 Cor. 12:12). He reminded them that the body needs all its members; that “God has so arranged the body, giving the greater honor to the inferior members, that there may be no dissension within the body, but the members may have the same care for one another” (vv. 24-25). The reminder is repeated as today’s reading begins. “Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it” (v. 27). Then Paul returns to the subject of the gifts of the spirit, this time beginning with reference to different offices, gifted persons, rather than a list of gifts as such. He says (v. 28a), “God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets (cf. prophecy, v. 10), third teachers (cf. “utterance of wisdom . . . utterance of knowledge,” v. 8). But this list reverts again to naming gifts or deeds rather than offices: “then deeds of power [cf. ‘working of miracles,’ v. 10], then gifts of healing [cf. v. 9], forms of assistance, forms of leadership, various kinds of tongues [cf. v. 10]” (v. 28b). From the fact that there is some repetition between the two lists, but not an exact one-to-one correlation, I take it that the list is not definitive and complete, presenting an exact, complete list of all the gifts; but rather is representative and exemplary. Compare the lists in Romans 12:6-8, also followed by an emphasis on love (v. 9; 13:8-10), and Ephesians 4:11, where the list identifies different church officers: apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers.

In the present reading, Paul repeats the list again with rhetorical questions: “Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret?” (vv. 29-30). In Greek, rhetorical questions that begin with the negative particle ouj (ou) imply that, from the questioner’s perspective, an affirmative answer is expected. On the other hand, rhetorical questions that begin with the other negative particle, mhv (mē), imply that , from the questioner’s perspective, a negative answer is expected. In English, for example, the question, “Don’t all work miracles?” would imply the answer, “Yes, of course.” But the form in the translation, “Do all work miracles?” if it is not a genuine request for information, would normally imply a negative answer. Certainly the form of the questions in Greek implies the answer “No, of course not!” The following translation of verses 29 and 30 brings out the force of these questions: “All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All don’t work miracles, do they? All don’t possess gifts of healing, do they? All don’t speak in tongues, do they? All don’t interpret, do they?” In this passage, at least, Paul clearly implies that there is no one gift that everyone must have. It is the Spirit himself that all should have, but not any one of his gifts (cf. Rom. 8:9). For each question, the implied answer, “No, of course not!” further emphasizes the need each of the members of the Christian community has for the others.

We are exhorted to “strive for the greater gifts,” and Paul will point out “a still more excellent way (v. 31). Later, he will emphasize the relative importance of the gift of prophecy as compared to the gift of tongues in 1 Corinthians, chapter 14. Here (12:27-13:3), the transition begins to prepare for that, but first directs our attention to the supreme importance of love, the “still more excellent way” (12:31 and chapter 13). Without love (ajgavph, agape), the best speaking in tongues is mere noise. “If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal” (v. 13:1). And in the same way, without love (ajgavph, agape) the best of prophetic powers, or the faith for working of miracles, is of no avail. “And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing” (v. 2). Paul speaks in the first person here, with reference to himself. But clearly, he has in mind some at Corinth who have made extravagant claims for themselves with respect to some of the spiritual gifts. Still, Paul continues by referring to himself as an example. “If I give away all my possessions, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing” (v. 3 NRSV; cf text note a, “body to be burned,” as in the AV/KJV). There is some uncertainty here about the choice of readings. The NRSV text , “if I hand over my body so that I may boast,” is based on the somewhat older and better manuscripts (cf. UBS Greek New Testament 3^rd ed., 1975, apparatus for 1 Cor. 13:3), but the editors qualify their decision with a “C” rating, which means “there is a considerable degree of doubt whether the text or the apparatus [i.e., in this case, the other reading, “body to be burned”] contains the superior reading” (p. xiii). C. S. C. Williams anticipated this judgment of uncertainty. “The variant ‘that I may boast’ is better attested textually, especially by Alexandrian MSS, than ‘that I may be burnt’, though the latter suits the context well and if it is original may show that Paul was thinking of Indian gymnosophists who burned themselves alive, like the Indian who accompanied Porus’ embassy to Athens, where Paul may have seen his grave” (Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, 1962, reprinted, 1972, sec. 840b, p. 962, on 1 Cor. 13:3). In Greek the two readings would sound very similar, i{na kauchvswmai (hina kauchēsōmai, “that I may boast”) and i{na kauqhvswmai (hina kauthēsōmai) or kauqhvsomai (kauthēsomai, “that I may be burned”).

In any event, as Ben Witherington III observes, there is hyperbole here.

To some extent, Paul’s hyperbole, especially in vv. 1-3, is a mocking of the Sophistic boasting going on among the inspired and eloquent ones in Corinth. . . . Paul ultimately believes that love, not freedom or knowledge, is the final watchword for Christians, bot as a key to understanding the mysteries of the faith and as a guide to behavior. (Conflict & Community in Corinth, 1994, pp. 268-269, on 1 Cor. 12:31b-13:13)

Witherington cites C. A. Holladay in this connection:

The hyperbole recasts the self-portrait so that each item is stretched to the limit of incredibility because it is recast with the assumptions of the Corinthian enthusiasts. That is, even if he were to allow his apostolic work to be shaped by the assumptions of those Corinthians who are not content with speaking, but insist the apostle must speak with eloquence surpassing human capabilities . . . , yet . . . unmotivated by agapē it would be for nought. (“1 Corinthians 13: Paul as Apostolic Paradigm,” in Early Christian Literature and the Classical Intellectual Tradition, 1979, cited by Witherington, p. 269)

Although Paul says to “strive for the greater gifts” (12:31), nothing from these lists is singled out as “greater.” (Later he will emphasize the value of “prophecy” for “upbuilding and encouragement and consolation,” 14:3, in a way that suggests “preaching.”) The “more excellent way” is “love” (chapter 13), which is not one of the gifts, but should characterize the exercise of all of the gifts, whether “prophetic powers” or “faith, so as to remove mountains” (13:2), or, presumably, any of the other gifts. Whether we discuss the character of God or of Christian holy living, love is fundamental.

Paul’s statement that “love is the fulfilling of the law” (Rom. 13:10) echoes the centrality of love within the Judeo-Christian tradition, from the Shema (Deut. 6:4-9) to Jesus’ response to the question about the “greatest commandment” (Mt. 22:34-40 and parallels) and beyond. But in this eloquent praise of love (1 Cor. 13), Paul outdoes himself. It is important to recognize this as God-given love that transcends the “natural loves” to which C. S. Lewis compares it. He discusses romantic love ( e[roV, eros), affection (storghv, storgē, which occurs in compounds in the NT, e.g. filovstorgoi, philostorgoi, “with mutual affection, Rom. 12:10), friendship (filiva, philia) and God’s kind of love (ajgavph, agapē). We may compare a statement by Ben Zion Bokser and Baruch M. Bokser:

While the rabbis placed the love of man at the summit of human virtue, they also urged people to cultivate the love of God as the source from which all other virtues flow. This is taught by R. Reuben, who was asked to define the most reprehensible act a man may commit. His answer was: the denial of God’s existence, ‘For no man violates the commandments, “thou shalt not murder,” “Thou shalt not steal,” til he has renounced his faith in God.’ (Tosefta Shebuot 3:6, cited by Bokser and Bokser, edd., in the Introduction to The Talmud; Selected Writings, The Classics of Western Spirituality, p. 29).

Paul describes this kind of love: it is patient, kind, not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. It is unselfish, not irritable or resentful. One wonders if we can live up to this standard. But within this description of love, it is clear that Paul is making a comparison with the spiritual gifts. In fact, the placement of the this description between the discussion of gifts and church unity in chapter 12 and the comparison of tongues and prophecy in chapter 14 makes it clear that love is the supreme value. Prophecy and understanding, even with faith, are nothing without love (1 Cor. 13:2). What could be better than faith, hope and love? But “the greatest of these is love” (v. 13).

So, 1 Corinthians 13, among other things, serves as Paul’s correction of over-enthusiasm for certain gifts on the part of some members of the Corinthian Christian community. Here, Paul waxes eloquent about love. “Love is patient,” he says; “love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things” (1 Cor. 13:4-7). According to Richard A. Horsley, “The positive qualities of love are the opposite of the Corinthians’ behavior presented elsewhere in the letter” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on 1 Cor. 13:4-7). “The second paragraph,” says Witherington, “has often been taken as a description of Christ’s character, which is true enough, but Paul intends it as a description of how a Christian ought to behave and of the way in which Paul has been attempting to behave. He contrasts blameworthy behavior, which seems to characterize the Corinthians, and the behavior that he is trying to model for his converts” (loc. cit.) . Witherington comments on the meaning of agapē, the term translated here as “love” (NRSV; “charity” AV/KJV).

For the NT writers love is a matter of behavior, not feeling. In particular it is other-directed behavior, not self-directed action. This is the character of Christian agapē. The word agapē is not uniquely Christian. Christians likely derived it from the Septuagint, where it is often used of God’s love, not ordinary human love. It is a unique privilege to be a bearer, by means of the Spirit, of God’s love. This love differs from both natural human affection (philia, so-called brotherly love) and eros (desiring love, usually related to physical attraction). (Ibid.)

As Paul continues his eloquent praise of love, he says, “Love never ends” (1 Cor. 13:8a). He contrasts love with some of the gifts listed earlier. “But as for prophecies [cf. 12:10, 28, 29], they will come to an end; as for tongues [cf. 12:10, 28, 29], they will cease; as for knowledge [cf. 12:8, 13:2], it will come to an end” (13:8b). These gifts have their limits. “For we know only in part,” says Paul, “and we prophesy only in part; but when the complete [NRSV to teleion, ‘that which is perfect’ AV/KJV] comes, the partial will come to an end” (vv. 9-10). Paul offers an explanation with reference to himself: “When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways” (v. 11). But it is clear that his own experience is an example for the others. “For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known” (v. 12). “In these comparisons,” says Horsley, “Paul becomes more rhapsodic, no longer ironic, glorifying the qualities he most values–while still denigrating the Corinthians’ most valued spiritual gifts. Against their sense of present transcendence, Paul emphasizes future fulfillment” (on vv. 8-13). Witherington says, “Verses 11f. should probably not be understood as saying that it is childish to speak in tongues or to prophesy, since Paul himself still does such things. He is saying that there is an age appropriate to such things and that now is that age. When the completion of the age finally comes, then it will be time to set aside what was appropriate and needful in that age. Only later will one know as one is known by God” (op. cit., p. 271, on vv. 11-12). As for the reference to seeing in a mirror (v. 12), Witherington says the “literal meaning is ‘in a riddle.’ Paul’s point is not to castigate mirror-making, which was a trade practiced in Corinth. Nor were ancient bronze mirrors necessarily all that bad. His point is, rather, that as a mirror image of the truth a mirror only partially tells the tale of what we look like. “What we know of Christ, self, others, or salvation through the Spirit is not necessarily inaccurate, just incomplete” (Ibid.).

As we reflect on Paul’s description of this kind of love, which is patient, kind, not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude; unselfish, not irritable or resentful, one wonders if we can live up to this standard. But within this description of love, it is clear that Paul is making a comparison with the spiritual gifts. In fact, the placement of this description between the discussion of gifts and church unity in chapter 12 and the comparison of tongues and prophecy in chapter 14 makes it clear that love is the supreme value. Prophecy and understanding, even with faith, are nothing without love (1 Cor. 13:2). What could be better than faith, hope and love? But “the greatest of these is love” (v. 13).

Matthew 18:21-35

Forgiveness

21 Then Peter came and said to him, "Lord, if another member of the church sins against me, how often should I forgive? As many as seven times?" 22 Jesus said to him, "Not seven times, but, I tell you, seventy-seven times.

The Parable of the Unforgiving Servant

23 "For this reason the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his slaves. 24 When he began the reckoning, one who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him; 25 and, as he could not pay, his lord ordered him to be sold, together with his wife and children and all his possessions, and payment to be made. 26 So the slave fell on his knees before him, saying, 'Have patience with me, and I will pay you everything.' 27 And out of pity for him, the lord of that slave released him and forgave him the debt. 28 But that same slave, as he went out, came upon one of his fellow slaves who owed him a hundred denarii; and seizing him by the throat, he said, 'Pay what you owe.' 29 Then his fellow slave fell down and pleaded with him, 'Have patience with me, and I will pay you.' 30 But he refused; then he went and threw him into prison until he would pay the debt. 31 When his fellow slaves saw what had happened, they were greatly distressed, and they went and reported to their lord all that had taken place. 32 Then his lord summoned him and said to him, 'You wicked slave! I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. 33 Should you not have had mercy on your fellow slave, as I had mercy on you?' 34 And in anger his lord handed him over to be tortured until he would pay his entire debt. 35 So my heavenly Father will also do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother or sister from your heart." (Matthew 18:21-35, NRSV)

On November 24, 2007 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to November 16, Year One), comments were based on those of November 5, 2006 (the Sunday closest to November 2, Year Two), and of November 19, 2005 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to November 16, Year One), when comments were adapted from an email message sent November 21, 2003. The comments of November 24, 2007 are repeated here:

On Forgiveness

When Peter asks how often to forgive “another member of the church” (Mt. 18:21), the Lord’s answer is short and to the point: “Seventy-seven times” (v. 22), a multiple (11 x 7) of Peter’s suggested “seven times” (v. 21). The emphasis is placed on forgiveness as “the guiding principle in church relations and resolving conflict” (J. Andrew Overman, NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on Mt. 18:21). Similar numbers appear in Genesis 4:24 (cf. Ibid.), but in that context vengeance, not forgiveness, is the subject.

Whereas God avenged the death of Abel, Lamech takes vengeance into his own hands; he exacts death only for an injury; he appropriates God’s own measures and intensifies the level of retribution, so much so that only a blood feud could ensue (see Matt. 18:21-22 for Jesus’ reversal of Lamech’s boast). The song shows how Cain’s violence had been intensified through the generations. Progress in sin and its effects matches the progress in civilization. (Terence E. Fretheim, on Gen. 4:17-26 in The New Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 1, 1994, p. 375).

Luke works the saying about forgiveness into a context on the peril of causing “one of these little ones to stumble” (Lk. 17:2, cf. vv. 1-4). In its own way, Luke’s “multiple” of seven, “seven times a day” (v. 4) also intensifies the emphasis on forgiveness. In reference to Peter’s question in Matthew, William Barclay says,

Peter thought that he was being very generous. . . . [He] was not without warrant for this suggestion. It was Rabbinic teaching that a man must forgive his brother three times. Rabbi Jose ben Hanina said, ‘He who begs forgiveness from his neighbour must not do so more than three times.’ Rabbi Jose ben Jehuda said, ‘If a man commits an offence once, they forgive him; if he commits an offence a time, they forgive him; if he commits an offence a third time, they forgive him; the fourth time they do not forgive.’ The Biblical proof that this was correct was taken from Amos. In the opening chapters of Amos, there is a series of condemnations on the various nations for three transgressions and for four (Amos 1:3, 6, 9, 11, 13; 2:1, 4, 6). From this it was deduced that God’s forgiveness extends to three offences and that he visits the sinner with punishment at the fourth. It was not to be thought that a man could be more gracious than God, so forgiveness was limited to three times. (William Barclay, The Gospel of Matthew, The Daily Study Bible Series, rev. ed., 1975, vol. 2, p. 135 on Mt. 18:21-35).

Barclay suggests that Peter thought he was being more than generous, “for he takes the Rabbinic three times, multiplies it by two [and] for good measure adds one, and suggests, with eager self-satisfaction, that it will be enough if he forgives seven times” (Ibid.). Jesus responds with a multiple of seven: “seventy-seven times” (v. 22; or seventy times seven NRSV note). Whether that amounts to seventy-seven (77) or seventy times seven (490), it’s a very large number for this context. Luke presents a version of this saying (Lk. 17:3) which was compared with the instruction on dealing with “another member of the church [who] sins against you” (Mt. 18:15, cf. vv. 15-20) yesterday: “And if the same person sins against you seven times a day, and turns back to you seven times and says, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive” (Lk. 17:4). Compare the previous verse, “Be on your guard! If another disciple sins, you must rebuke the offender, and if there is repentance, you must forgive” (v. 3). Luke’s version of Jesus’ response, “seven times a day” (Lk 17:4), has no cut-off point. Seven times a day for how long? It wouldn’t take long to exceed four hundred ninety (490) times. In both Gospels, Jesus essentially says, forgiveness should be unlimited when there is repentance. “In other words, there is no reckonable limit to forgiveness” (Barclay, ibid., on Mt. 18:21-35).

The Parable of the Unforgiving Slave

The point of Jesus’ exchange with Peter about how many times one should forgive another church member is illustrated in Matthew by a story, the Parable of the Unforgiving Slave (Mt. 18:23-35, not reported in the other Gospels). A king "wished to settle accounts with his slaves" (v. 23). The debt of the first slave is reckoned as “ten thousand talents” (10,000 times 15 years of wages for a laborer; “a talent was worth more than fifteen years’ wages of a laborer,” NRSV text note I on Mt. 18:24). When the slave “could not pay, his lord ordered him to be sold, together with his wife and children and all his possessions, and payment to be made” (v. 25). But the slave “fell on his knees before him, saying, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you everything.’ And out of pity for him, the lord of that slave released him and forgave him the debt” (vv. 26-27).

But the parable continues, for “that same slave, as he went out, came upon one of his fellow slaves who owed him a hundred denarii; and seizing him by the throat, he said, 'Pay what you owe’ ” (v. 28). The denarius was the usual day’s wage for a laborer” (NRSV text note j on v. 28), so the debt of “a hundred denarii” amounted to one hundred days’ wages (as opposed to the amount of 15 years’ wages owed by the first slave). The second slave’s plea for mercy, “Have patience with me, and I will pay you” (v. 29) echoes the first slave’s plea (v. 26). But the first slave “refused; then he went and threw him into prison until he would pay the debt” (v. 30). When fellow slaves inform the king of “all that had taken place” (v. 31), the first slave is summoned; and the king says to him, “You wicked slave! I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. Should you not have had mercy on your fellow slave, as I had mercy on you?” (vv. 32-33). With that, the parable comes to the point in the king's rebuke: “You wicked slave! I forgave you all that debt [10,000 talents, v. 24] because you pleaded with me. Should you not have had mercy on your fellow slave, as I had mercy on you?" (vv. 32-33). Because a single talent was worth more than fifteen years' wages of a laborer, ten thousand talents is “an unimaginable amount” (Dennis C. Duling, HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Mt. 18:24). At these rates, the larger debt was 150,000 years’ wages! When we are forgiven, are we not to pass it on? I guess one ought to be more than ready to forgive!

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net