Deuteronomy 13:1-11

13:1 If prophets or those who divine by dreams appear among you and promise you omens or portents, 2 and the omens or the portents declared by them take place, and they say, "Let us follow other gods" (whom you have not known) "and let us serve them," 3 you must not heed the words of those prophets or those who divine by dreams; for the LORD your God is testing you, to know whether you indeed love the LORD your God with all your heart and soul. 4 The LORD your God you shall follow, him alone you shall fear, his commandments you shall keep, his voice you shall obey, him you shall serve, and to him you shall hold fast. 5 But those prophets or those who divine by dreams shall be put to death for having spoken treason against the LORD your God-who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of slavery-to turn you from the way in which the LORD your God commanded you to walk. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.

6 If anyone secretly entices you–even if it is your brother, your father's son or your mother's son, or your own son or daughter, or the wife you embrace, or your most intimate friend-saying, "Let us go worship other gods," whom neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7 any of the gods of the peoples that are around you, whether near you or far away from you, from one end of the earth to the other, 8 you must not yield to or heed any such persons. Show them no pity or compassion and do not shield them. 9 But you shall surely kill them; your own hand shall be first against them to execute them, and afterwards the hand of all the people. 10 Stone them to death for trying to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. 11 Then all Israel shall hear and be afraid, and never again do any such wickedness. (Deuteronomy 13:1-11, NRSV = Heb. 13:2-12)

On June 6, 2007 (Wednesday in the week of Trinity Sunday, references for the week of the Sunday closest to June 1), comments were repeated from June 1, 2005 (Wednesday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 1, Year One); they are repeated again here with some editing and supplement:

A hypothetical case is presented. “If prophets or those who divine by dreams appear among you and promise you omens or portents, and the omens or the portents declared by them take place, and they say, ‘Let us follow other gods’ (whom you have not known) ‘and let us serve them’ ” (Deut. 13:1-2 = Heb. 13:2-3). The fact that “the omens or the portents . . . take place” would appear to conform to the test of a true prophet given later in Deuteronomy. “If a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD but the thing does not take place or prove true, it is a word that the LORD has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; do not be frightened by it” (Deut. 18:22). Bernard M. Levinson calls the first situation in chapter 13 the first of three “hypothetical situations involving conflict of covenant loyalty to God” (Bernard M. Levinson, NOAB, 3^rd ed.. On Deut. 13:1-18). Although he passes the later test, promotion of idolatry shows that he is patently false. So Moses says, “you must not heed the words of those prophets or those who divine by dreams; for the LORD your God is testing you, to know whether you indeed love the LORD your God with all your heart and soul” (v. 3). The fundamental principle is loyalty to the LORD. “The LORD your God you shall follow, him alone you shall fear, his commandments you shall keep, his voice you shall obey, him you shall serve, and to him you shall hold fast” (v. 4). The promotion of idolatry overrides the principle of the later test. And the false prophet is to be put to death.

But those prophets or those who divine by dreams shall be put to death for having spoken treason against the LORD your God-who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of slavery-to turn you from the way in which the LORD your God commanded you to walk. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. (Deut. 13:5 NRSV = Heb. 13:6)

Rabbi J. H. Hertz cites Maimonides in his own comments:

“Reason, which declares his testimony false, is more to be trusted than the eye which sees his signs” (Maimonides). . . . The fulfilment of the prediction is not evidence of the validity of the man’s claims, but God is putting you to the test, whether your loyalty to God can withstand the most insidious seductions from His revealed will. This refusal to recognize miracle as necessarily a proof of the truth of a doctrine is typically Jewish. When Sir George Adam Smith writes that it is not in harmony with both the official and the popular mind of ancient Jewry, he does so as a New Testament apologist and in disregard of Rabbinic teaching. The latter can be learned from the story of R. Joshua’s unchallenged assertion snh lf Nykmvs Nyx [’ ên sôm^ekîn ‘al hannas], “Miracles in themselves cannot be invoked as decisive in matters of reason and law.” A thousand years later, Hallevi and Maimonides likewise maintained that miraculous acts can on no account be deemed as an unerring attestation of a Divine mission. (Pentateuch & Haftorahs, pp. 805-806, on Deut. 13:4 Heb. [v. 3 English])

In the second hypothetical situation, what applies to the prophet who advocates idolatry also applies to any family member who does the same.

If anyone secretly entices you–even if it is your brother, your father's son or your mother's son, or your own son or daughter, or the wife you embrace, or your most intimate friend-saying, "Let us go worship other gods," whom neither you nor your ancestors have known, any of the gods of the peoples that are around you, whether near you or far away from you, from one end of the earth to the other, you must not yield to or heed any such persons. Show them no pity or compassion and do not shield them. (Deut. 13:6-8, NRSV = Heb. 7-9).

One must not make exceptions for family relationships. Promoting idolatry whether by prophets or by close family members, is prohibited. And the prescribed penalty, even in cases within one’s family, is severe. “But you shall surely kill them (Un0g@r4haTa grohA, hārōg tahargenû), your own hand shall be first against them to execute them, and afterwards the hand of all the people” (v. 9 NRSV = Heb. v. 10). “But take his life, lit. ‘But you shall surely kill him,’ ” says Levinson. “This verb is almost never used for a standard judicial execution. Here it demands that the inciter should be killed on the spot. Only the religious emergency of a grave threat to the covenant, requiring urgent action, explains this type of summary execution (see also Exod. 32:27; Num. 25:5; Ezek. 9:6; cf. L3ev. 20:15-16)” (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, on v. 10 NJPS 1985, 1999 = Heb.). One should act decisively and forcefully. “Stone them to death for trying to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery” (v. 10 NRSV = Heb. v. 11). “Stoning,” says Levinson,

was reserved for a particular class of offenses regarded as violating the community’s fundamental values or sources of authority: apostasy or treason (here; 17:2-7; Lev. 20:2; Josh. 7:10-26; 1 Kings 21:8-14), blasphemy (Lev. 24:13-230, defying parental authority (21:18-21; 22:20-21), betraying marriage (22:23-24. Each of these offenses is prohibited by the Decalogue (5:6-7, 11, 16, 17). This form of punishment compelled the community to act collectively to repudiate the offense. (ibid., on v.11 NJPS = Heb. = v. 10 NRSV)

Such action should be a warning to all Israel. “Then all Israel shall hear and be afraid, and never again do any such wickedness” (v. 11 NRSV = v. 12 Heb.). Levinson infers from the word “secretly” in verse 6 that “there are no witnesses” and from verse 9, “you shall surely kill them,” that it is a “summary execution. The absence of witnesses and a trial conflicts with Deuteronomy’s own requirements elsewhere (17:4,6; 19:15), but arises from the grave threat to the covenant (Ex. 32:25-27; Num. 25:6-9)” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., on Deut. 13:6, 9). But Rabbi Hertz disagrees in his comment on verse 10:

thou shalt surely kill him. Not that one is to take the law into his own hand, but that the would-be seducer must stand his trial and be condemned by a court.

thy hand shall be first. In the public infliction of the death penalty, according to xvii, 7. The convicting witness must bear the initial responsibility of the act, cost him what sorrow it may.

Jewish history does not record a single instance of punishment for religious seduction by false prophet or member of one’s family. (op. cit., p. 807, on Deut. 13:10 Heb., v. 9 English)

2 Corinthians 7:2-16

2 Make room in your hearts for us; we have wronged no one, we have corrupted no one, we have taken advantage of no one. 3 I do not say this to condemn you, for I said before that you are in our hearts, to die together and to live together. 4 I often boast about you; I have great pride in you; I am filled with consolation; I am overjoyed in all our affliction.

5 For even when we came into Macedonia, our bodies had no rest, but we were afflicted in every way-disputes without and fears within. 6 But God, who consoles the downcast, consoled us by the arrival of Titus, 7 and not only by his coming, but also by the consolation with which he was consoled about you, as he told us of your longing, your mourning, your zeal for me, so that I rejoiced still more. 8 For even if I made you sorry with my letter, I do not regret it (though I did regret it, for I see that I grieved you with that letter, though only briefly). 9 Now I rejoice, not because you were grieved, but because your grief led to repentance; for you felt a godly grief, so that you were not harmed in any way by us. 10 For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation and brings no regret, but worldly grief produces death. 11 For see what earnestness this godly grief has produced in you, what eagerness to clear yourselves, what indignation, what alarm, what longing, what zeal, what punishment! At every point you have proved yourselves guiltless in the matter. 12 So although I wrote to you, it was not on account of the one who did the wrong, nor on account of the one who was wronged, but in order that your zeal for us might be made known to you before God. 13 In this we find comfort.

In addition to our own consolation, we rejoiced still more at the joy of Titus, because his mind has been set at rest by all of you. 14 For if I have been somewhat boastful about you to him, I was not disgraced; but just as everything we said to you was true, so our boasting to Titus has proved true as well. 15 And his heart goes out all the more to you, as he remembers the obedience of all of you, and how you welcomed him with fear and trembling. 16 I rejoice, because I have complete confidence in you. (2 Corinthians 7:2-16, NRSV)

On June 6, 2007 (Wednesday in the week of Trinity Sunday, references for the week of the Sunday closest to June 1), comments were repeated from June 1, 2005 (Wednesday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 1, Year One); the comments are repeated again here with some editing and supplement

This passage contains what appears to be the completion of two interrupted narratives. The beginning in which Paul urges the Corinthians to “make room in your hearts for us; we have wronged no one, we have taken advantage of on one” (2 Cor. 7:2), according to Sze-kar Wan, is “resumption of appeal in 6:11-13” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on 2 Cor. 7:2-4). “I do not say this to condemn you,” says Paul, “for I said before that you are in our hearts, to die together and to live together. I often boast about you; I have great pride in you; I am filled with consolation; I am overjoyed in all our affliction” (vv. 3-4). As the resumption of 6:11-13, the two passages would bracket what some see as a different letter, or fragment of a letter, written by Paul but on a different occasion (2 Cor. 6:14-7:1). But some, for example, Ben Witherington III, as cited yesterday (cf. below), support the unity of 2 Corinthians as a single letter with shifting tone and emphasis in accord with ancient rhetorical theory.

But then Paul takes up the travel narrative that was interrupted at 2 Corinthians 2:14. Note the connection between the two following passages:

12 When I came to Troas to proclaim the good news of Christ, a door was opened for me in the Lord; 13 but my mind could not rest because I did not find my brother Titus there. So I said farewell to them and went on to Macedonia. (2 Corinthians 2:12-13, NRSV)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

For even when we came into Macedonia, our bodies had no rest, but we were afflicted in every way–disputes without and fears within. But God, who consoles the downcast, consoled us by the arrival of Titus, and not only by his coming, but also by the consolation with which he was consoled about you, as he told us of your longing, your mourning, your zeal for me, so that I rejoiced still more. (2 Corinthians 7:5-7, NRSV)

Paul’s gratitude for the reconciliation through the efforts of Titus continues. He recalls his “painful visit” to Corinth (2:1) and his painful letter (vv. 3-4). “For even if I made you sorry with my letter,” he says, “I do not regret it (though I did regret it, for I see that I grieved you with that letter, though only briefly)” (7:8). The letter, apparently a stern rebuke, has had a beneficial effect. “Now I rejoice, not because you were grieved, but because your grief led to repentance; for you felt a godly grief, so that you were not harmed in any way by us” (v. 9). Paul draws a contrast between two kinds of grief. “For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation and brings no regret, but worldly grief produces death” (v. 10). Paul is stirred within himself at what this instance of repentance and reconciliation has brought about, and exclaims, “For see what earnestness this godly grief has produced in you, what eagerness to clear yourselves, what indignation, what alarm, what longing, what zeal, what punishment! At every point you have proved yourselves guiltless in the matter” (v. 11). Except for “the one who did wrong,” Paul exonerates the Corinthians. “So although I wrote to you, it was not on account of the one who did the wrong, nor on account of the one who was wronged, but in order that your zeal for us might be made known to you before God. In this we find comfort” (vv. 12, 13a). For “the one who did the wrong,” Wan refers to 2:6, “this punishment by the majority is enough for such a person” (op. cit., on 7:12). And “the one who was wronged,” he sees as Paul himself (ibid.; cf. John T. Fitzgerald, HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on 2 Cor. 7:12).

And Paul continues to express his joy at the reunion with Titus. “In addition to our own consolation, we rejoiced still more at the joy of Titus, because his mind has been set at rest by all of you” (v. 13b). Paul has boasted about the Corinthians to Titus, and is glad to be vindicated. “For if I have been somewhat boastful about you to him, I was not disgraced; but just as everything we said to you was true, so our boasting to Titus has proved true as well” (v. 14). Paul reports the affection of Titus for the Corinthians. “And his heart goes out all the more to you, as he remembers the obedience of all of you, and how you welcomed him with fear and trembling” (v. 15). And so, Paul affirms his confidence in the Corinthians. “I rejoice, because I have complete confidence in you” (v. 16).

The good news that Paul reports receiving in Macedonia, his catching up with Titus and his good report about the Corinthians’ good feelings for Paul (2 Cor. 7:7), would provide a happy ending for a troubled relationship, if the letter were to end here, or with chapter 9, as some would have it. There are those who believe that chapters 10-13 are an earlier letter, perhaps the “painful letter” mentioned in 2:3-4. Remarkably, almost none of the scholars who divide 2 Corinthians into two or more “separate letters,” later combined, believes that someone other than Paul wrote them. It is tempting to think of the last four chapters as reflecting a severe problem in the challenge of some to Paul’s integrity and apostleship, and to see in this passage Paul’s gratitude and consolation in the fact that, with the help of Titus, the reconciliation has been completed. Doesn’t everyone love a happy ending? But even here, Paul is still pleading: “Make room in your hearts for us” (7:2). So it is helpful to trace the argument of Ben Witherington III which analyzes the whole of 2 Corinthians as an example of “forensic rhetoric” comparable to that espoused and used by such ancient teachers of rhetoric and ancient orators as Seneca, Cicero and Demosthenes, and explains the digressions and shifts in tone as standard rhetorical practice.

Cicero once suggested that the ability to placate or reconcile was a sign of true greatness in human character (De Off. I.25.88). If this is so, then perhaps 2 Corinthians more than any of Paul’s other letters reveals his largeness of soul. Here he wrestles with a variety of forces that threaten to alienate him from his converts in Corinth. While 1 Corinthians was written to effect reconciliation among Paul’s converts in Corinth, 2 Corinthians was written to effect reconciliation between Paul and his converts there. Both letters aim at reconciliation, but they approach that goal with different rhetorical strategies, as the exigences calling them forth differed. (Conflict & Community in Corinth, pp. 327-328)

Citing S. Kraftchick, Witherington adds: “The combination of . . . social and theological misgivings resulted in the shutdown of mutual affection between Paul and the Corinthians. . . . Paul writes to restore this relationship, and to restore their understanding and trust in him as an apostle of God” (ibid., p. 328).

Paul believed that failure to achieve this reconciliation would endanger the very Christian identity of the Corinthian ekklēsia, since Paul was Christ’s agent. To be alienated from the agent was to be alienated from the one who sent him. So not only the integrity of Paul’s ministry but also the integrity of the Corinthians’ faith is at stake. Paul must defend himself, his behavior, and his ministry and he must also protect his converts from the very real danger of apostasy. . . .

The letter thus attempts to put into practice what Paul so eloquently preaches in 5:17-19. If Paul is the ambassador of reconciliation between God in Christ and the Corinthians, to discredit the ambassador is to deny the reality of the Corinthians’ reconciliation to God. (ibid.)

I challenge you to list situations in our world where reconciliation is needed. With a little work, you can make a very long list, can’t you?

Luke 17:20-37

20 Once Jesus was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God was coming, and he answered, "The kingdom of God is not coming with things that can be observed; 21 nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or 'There it is!' For, in fact, the kingdom of God is among you."

22 Then he said to the disciples, "The days are coming when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man, and you will not see it. 23 They will say to you, 'Look there!' or 'Look here!' Do not go, do not set off in pursuit. 24 For as the lightning flashes and lights up the sky from one side to the other, so will the Son of Man be in his day. 25 But first he must endure much suffering and be rejected by this generation. 26 Just as it was in the days of Noah, so too it will be in the days of the Son of Man. 27 They were eating and drinking, and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed all of them. 28 Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot: they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building, 29 but on the day that Lot left Sodom, it rained fire and sulfur from heaven and destroyed all of them 30 –it will be like that on the day that the Son of Man is revealed. 31 On that day, anyone on the housetop who has belongings in the house must not come down to take them away; and likewise anyone in the field must not turn back. 32 Remember Lot's wife. 33 Those who try to make their life secure will lose it, but those who lose their life will keep it. 34 I tell you, on that night there will be two in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. 35 There will be two women grinding meal together; one will be taken and the other left." 37 Then they asked him, "Where, Lord?" He said to them, "Where the corpse is, there the vultures will gather." (Luke 17:20-37, NRSV)

On November 20, 2008 (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to November 16, 2008, Year Two), comments were repeated from June 6, 2007 (Wednesday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 1, Year One), when comments were repeated from November 23, 2006 (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to November 16, Year Two), when comments were combined with revision and supplement from November 18, 2004 (Thursday of the week of the Sunday closest to November 16, Year Two), and from June 1, 2005 (Wednesday of the week of the Sunday closest to June 1, Year One). The combined comments are repeated again here:

Luke’s material parallel to the eschatological speech of Mark 13 and Matthew 24 appears, for the most part in Luke, chapter 21. But some with parallels in Matthew appears in Luke 17, as indicated by the distribution in the table in the separate file, Eschatology in Luke 17. There is a warning not to go out looking for the Son of Man (Lk. 17:23-24; Mt. 24:26-27); comparison with the days of Noah (Lk. 17:26-27; Mt. 24:37-41); “Those who try to make their life secure will lose it, but those who lose their life will keep it” (Lk. 17:33; Mt. 10:39; Mk. 8:35; Mt.16:25; Lk. 9:24). Through most of chapter 24, Matthew is closely parallel to Mark 13. Luke has much of the same material in chapter 21, which is placed, as are Matthew 24-25 and Mark 13, in Jesus’ final week in Jerusalem before the crucifixion. So it is a little surprising to find several passages elsewhere in Luke that have their parallels in Matthew 24-25 and Mark 13: (1) Matthew 24:23-28; Mark 13:21-23; Luke 17:23-24, 37b; (2) Matthew 24:11; Luke 17:20-21; (3) Matthew 25:13-15; 24:42; Mark 13:33-37; Luke 21:36; 19:12-13; 12:40; 12:38; (4) Matthew 24:37-44; Mark 13:33,35; Luke 17:26-36; 12:39-40; (5) Matthew 24:45-51; Luke 12:41-45; (6) Matthew 25:1-13; Mark 13:33-37; Luke 12:35-38; and (7) Matthew 25:14-30; Mark 13:34; Luke 19:11-27. The popular view of nineteenth century historical critics that eschatology and apocalyptic material were foreign to the teaching of Jesus, but added later by Christians, has long since been demolished for New Testament scholars of the more critical persuasion by Johannes Weiss and Albert Schweitzer.

Today’s reading follows upon the account of Jesus cleansing ten lepers, yesterday’s reading, an event reported only in Luke. “Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God was coming, he [Jesus] answered them, ‘The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed” (Lk. 17:20). This much too seems to have no parallel in the other Gospels, but the continuation seems to be unique: “The kingdom of God is not coming with things that can be observed; nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There it is!’ For, in fact, the kingdom of God is among you” (Lk. 17:21). Some scholars, aware of debates about what Jesus meant by his eschatological teaching, have labeled the concept presented by this verse “realized eschatology.” It seems to me that, whatever else Jesus may have meant by that statement, he is saying that he himself will be with the sincere believer who seeks him out–with him or her as Lord, Savior and Friend.

At the beginning (Luke 17:20-21) Jesus “shifted the emphasis from future expectation to the observable presence of the kingdom in his ministry (see 11:20)” (Marion Lloyd Soards, NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on Lk 17:20-21). This text is crucial for some who describe Jesus’ message in terms of “realized eschatology”: the Kingdom of God is already present in Jesus’ ministry. Many, remembering an earlier debate between advocates of realized eschatology (C. H. Dodd and others) and the advocates of future eschatology as the main characteristic of Jesus’ teaching, have focused more recently on a mediating position: in some sense the kingdom was already present during Jesus’ ministry, “the kingdom of God is among you” (Lk. 17:21), but future aspects, including the Second Coming of Christ are also central to his teaching. Eric Franklin notes that “the passage in [Luke] 12:32-51 had warned the disciples to be alert for the return of Christ” (The Oxford Bible Commentary, 2001, p. 949, on Lk. 17:20-18:8). He adds:

This section [17:20-18:8] takes up this theme and expands upon it, this time, however, climaxing not so much in the warning as in a pointing to the event as an object of hope. (ibid.)

“Then,” says Luke, “he [Jesus] said to the disciples, ‘The days are coming when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man, and you will not see it’ ” (v. 22). So the kingdom seems to become a little more remote. Mark emphasizes suffering before the endtime (Mk. 13:19). Where in Mark Jesus warns against those who say, “Look! Here is the Messiah!” (Mk. 13:21; cf. Mt. 24:23), in Luke, the warning focuses on the day of the Son of Man. “They will say to you, ‘Look there!’ or ‘Look here!’ Do not go, do not set off in pursuit. For as the lightning flashes and lights up the sky from one side to the other, so will the Son of Man be in his day” (Lk. 21:23-24; to v. 24, cf. Mt. 24:17). Jesus makes a comparison with the days of Noah (Lk. 21:26; Mt. 24:37). “They were eating and drinking,” says Jesus, “and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed all of them” (Lk. 21:27; cf. Mt. 24:38-39a). In Luke, Jesus makes a similar comparison to the days of Lot: “Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot: they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building, but on the day that Lot left Sodom, it rained fire and sulfur from heaven and destroyed all of them” (Lk. 21:28-29). “It will be like that on the day that the Son of Man is revealed,” says Jesus (Lk. 21:30; cf. Mt. 24:39b). The emphasis here is on the unexpectedness of Jesus’ coming. There will not be time to retrieve belongings. “On that day, anyone on the housetop who has belongings in the house must not come down to take them away; and likewise anyone in the field must not turn back” (Lk. 17:31; cf. Mk. 13:15-16; Mt. 24:17-18). Only Luke adds “Remember Lot’s wife” (v. 32, cf. vv. 28-29).

Luke’s Jesus presents a principle here that Matthew locates elsewhere. “ Those who try to make their life secure will lose it, but those who lose their life will keep it” (v. 33; cf. Mt. 10:39; Jn. 12:25; cf. also Mk. 8:35; Mt; 16:20; Lk. 9:24). The community itself will be divided, separating those who are ready from those who are not. “I tell you, on that night there will be two in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. There will be two women grinding meal together; one will be taken and the other left” (vv. 34-35; cf. Mt. 24:40-41; cf. also the reading of some mss. as Lk. 17:36, NRSV text note f). In answer to the disciples’ question “Where?” Jesus concludes this passage with what was probably a common secular proverb about inevitability, “Where the corpse is, there the vultures will gather” (v. 37 “As surely as vultures find the carcass,” says Soards, “so surely will divine judgment come; therefore always be ready!” (op. cit., on Lk. 17:37).

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net