1 Samuel 11:1-15

11:1 About a month later, Nahash the Ammonite went up and besieged Jabesh-gilead; and all the men of Jabesh said to Nahash, "Make a treaty with us, and we will serve you." 2 But Nahash the Ammonite said to them, "On this condition I will make a treaty with you, namely that I gouge out everyone's right eye, and thus put disgrace upon all Israel." 3 The elders of Jabesh said to him, "Give us seven days' respite that we may send messengers through all the territory of Israel. Then, if there is no one to save us, we will give ourselves up to you." 4 When the messengers came to Gibeah of Saul, they reported the matter in the hearing of the people; and all the people wept aloud.

5 Now Saul was coming from the field behind the oxen; and Saul said, "What is the matter with the people, that they are weeping?" So they told him the message from the inhabitants of Jabesh. 6 And the spirit of God came upon Saul in power when he heard these words, and his anger was greatly kindled. 7 He took a yoke of oxen, and cut them in pieces and sent them throughout all the territory of Israel by messengers, saying, "Whoever does not come out after Saul and Samuel, so shall it be done to his oxen!" Then the dread of the LORD fell upon the people, and they came out as one. 8 When he mustered them at Bezek, those from Israel were three hundred thousand, and those from Judah seventy thousand. 9 They said to the messengers who had come, "Thus shall you say to the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead: 'Tomorrow, by the time the sun is hot, you shall have deliverance.' " When the messengers came and told the inhabitants of Jabesh, they rejoiced. 10 So the inhabitants of Jabesh said, "Tomorrow we will give ourselves up to you, and you may do to us whatever seems good to you." 11 The next day Saul put the people in three companies. At the morning watch they came into the camp and cut down the Ammonites until the heat of the day; and those who survived were scattered, so that no two of them were left together.

12 The people said to Samuel, "Who is it that said, 'Shall Saul reign over us?' Give them to us so that we may put them to death." 13 But Saul said, "No one shall be put to death this day, for today the LORD has brought deliverance to Israel."

14 Samuel said to the people, "Come, let us go to Gilgal and there renew the kingship." 15 So all the people went to Gilgal, and there they made Saul king before the LORD in Gilgal. There they sacrificed offerings of well-being before the LORD, and there Saul and all the Israelites rejoiced greatly. (1 Samuel 11:1-15, NRSV)

On July 3, 2007 (Tuesday in the week of the Fifth Sunday after Pentecost, references for the week of the Sunday closest to June 29, Year One), comments were repeated with some editing and supplement from June 28, 2005 (Tuesday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 29, Year One); the comments are repeated again here with editing and supplement:

The background for the war in this reading was part of yesterday’s reading, in the paragraph added from the Dead Sea Scrolls fragment (i.e. 1 Sam. 10:27b). Nahash, king of the Ammonites had been gouging out the right eye of the Gadites and the Reubenites–the tribes that had settled east of the Jordan. He wanted to humiliate and punish them for encroaching upon his land. “But there were seven thousand men who had escaped from the Ammonites and had entered Jabesh-gilead” (1 Sam. 10:27b).

When Nahash besieged Jabesh-gilead, the Israelites there offered to serve him based on a treaty. The timing serves to connect the Dead Sea Scrolls fragment with the continuation of the Massoretic (i.e. traditional) Hebrew text. “About a month later,” says the narrator (1 Sam. 11:1a NRSV; cf. text note d, “Q Ms Gk: MT lacks About a month later”). At that time, “Nahash the Ammonite went up and besieged Jabesh-gilead; and all the men of Jabesh said to Nahash, ‘Make a treaty with us, and we will serve you’ ” (11:1b). But they had second thought when Nahash stated his terms. “But Nahash the Ammonite said to them, ‘On this condition I will make a treaty with you, namely that I gouge out everyone's right eye, and thus put disgrace upon all Israel’ ” (v. 2). According to Shimon Bar-Efrat says, “Gouging out eyes was considered deeply humiliating (Judg. 16:12; 2 Kings 25:7)” (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, on 1 Sam. 11:2). In response to Nahash’s condition, “the elders of Jabesh said to him, ‘Give us seven days’ respite that we may send messengers through all the territory of Israel. Then, if there is no one to save us, we will give ourselves up to you” (v. 3). Steven L. McKenzie points out that “the messengers are not sent directly to Saul but through all the territory of Israel” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on 1 Sam. 11:3). Next, “when the messengers came to Gibeah of Saul, they reported the matter in the hearing of the people; and all the people wept aloud” (v. 4). Saul has not yet heard the news, a fact that has been interpreted variously. “Now Saul was coming from the field behind the oxen,” says the narrator; and Saul said, ‘What is the matter with the people, that they are weeping?’ So they told him the message from the inhabitants of Jabesh” (v. 5). “Even in Gibeah,” says McKenzie, “the messengers do not seek out Saul; he learns of their mission because of the weeping of the people as he returns from the field. The story, then, does not assume that Saul is king” (ibid., on vv. 4-5). This observation apparently supports McKenzie’s view that more than one traditional account has been combined here (cf. ibid., on 10:20-21). But Bar-Efrat says, “Saul, not yet inaugurated king [cf. v. 15, discussed below], still works in the field” (op. cit., on v. 5).

When Saul was informed (vv. 4-6), as in the book of Judges, “the spirit of God came upon Saul in power when he heard these words, and his anger was greatly kindled” (v. 6). His way of mustering an army was to take “a yoke of oxen, and cut them in pieces and [send] them throughout all the territory of Israel by messengers, saying, ‘Whoever does not come out after Saul and Samuel, so shall it be done to his oxen!’ ” (v. 7). (I guess he didn’t have a draft board.). According to the report 370,000 men responded, 300,000 from Israel and 70,000 from Judah. “When he mustered them at Bezek, those from Israel were three hundred thousand, and those from Judah seventy thousand” (v. 8). According to McKenzie, “The distinction between Israel and Judah either is an anachronism or reflects a differentiation that was always felt if not institutionalized until after Solomon’s reign” (op. cit., on v. 8). Bar-Efrat does not present both views, but says, “Israel and Judah are thought of as different entities. David united them, but after Solomon they divided into two separate states” (op. cit., on v. 8). According to Dennis R. Bratcher, Bezek was “a city in north-central Canaan . . . identified as modern Khirbet Ibziq, about twelve miles northeast of Shechem (Nablus) and some sixteen miles west of Jabesh-gilead” (Harper’s Bible Dictionary, rev. ed., 1996, s.v. Bezek 2.). Word of help coming was sent to Jabesh-gilead. “They said to the messengers who had come, ‘Thus shall you say to the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead: “Tomorrow, by the time the sun is hot, you shall have deliverance.” ’ When the messengers came and told the inhabitants of Jabesh, they rejoiced” (v. 9). But a trap was set for the Ammonites by pretending to agree to their terms. “So the inhabitants of Jabesh said, ‘Tomorrow we will give ourselves up to you (Mk,ylex3 xcen2 rHAmA, māchār nētsē’ ’ ^alêkem, lit. ‘we will come out to you’), and you may do to us whatever seems good to you’ ” (v. 10 NRSV). The recent Jewish translation says, “The men of Jabesh then told [the Ammonites], ‘Tomorrow we will surrender to you, and you can do to us whatever you please’ ” (v. 10 NJPS 1985, 1999). In comment on the NJPS translation, Bar-Efrat says, “We will surrender to you, lit. ‘We will come out to you.’ This is understood by the Ammonites as ‘we will surrender,’ but meant by the people of Jabesh as ‘we will fight’ ” (op. cit., on v. 10; cf. McKenzie, op. cit., on v. 10). Another bit of trickery is also involved. Since the Israelite’s next day begins at sundown, their coming “tomorrow would be an attack at night, as we would say. “The next day,” we are told, “Saul put the people in three companies. At the morning watch they came into the camp and cut down the Ammonites until the heat of the day” (v. 11a, b NRSV). “During the morning watch,” (says Bar-Efrat), the last of the three watches into which the night was divided, sleep is deepest. Saul attacks from three directions (cf. Gideon’s tactic, Judg. 7:16ff.)” (op. cit., on v. 11; cf. McKenzie, op. cit., on v. 11). And the result is a clear victory for Israel, for “those [of the Ammonites] who survived were scattered, so that no two of them were left together” (v. 11c).

As a result of this victory over the Ammonites, Saul wins the approval of the people and proves those wrong who opposed his appointment as king earlier (10:27). “The people said to Samuel, ‘Who is it that said, 'Shall Saul reign over us?’ Give them to us so that we may put them to death’ ” (11:12). But Saul is magnanimous in victory. “No one,” he says, “shall be put to death this day, for today the LORD has brought deliverance to Israel” (v. 13). Steven L. McKenzie considers verses 12-14 “an editorial addition that links 10:17-27a with 10:27b-11:15,” adding that “These verses, and the story as a whole, show how Saul succeeded in delivering Israel and thus answering his critics, and thereby present him in a positive light” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., on 1 Sam. 11:12-14). McKenzie adds that “the original story did not assume that Saul was already king but explained that the people made Saul king as a result of his victory on this occasion” (on v. 15), but that is based on certain assumptions about early sources and later editors. Various ideas have been proposed to resolve the apparent tension in this period between those favoring monarchy and those favoring a continuation of theocracy as in the Book of Judges, the rule of God through charismatic leaders upon whom “the spirit of God came.” In the modern churches, we generally recognize the need for order and distribution of responsibilities, but we also appreciate those who are manifestly led by the Spirit of God and their contributions to the life of the church.

The concluding paragraph introduces Samuel, who has not appeared to this point in this episode. “Come,” he says, “let us go to Gilgal and there renew the kingship (hkAUlm04ha, hamm ^elûkāh)” (v. 14), which they do. “So all the people went to Gilgal, and there they made Saul king (Ukl9m4y0av1, wayyamlikû) before the LORD in Gilgal. There they sacrificed offerings of well-being before the LORD, and there Saul and all the Israelites rejoiced greatly” (v. 15; cf. 10:1, 20-26). “After Saul’s great achievement,” says Bar-Efrat, “the time is fit to inaugurate him as king. Offering sacrifices and holding a great celebration, lit. ‘great rejoicing,’ were part of the royal inauguration ceremony” (op. cit., on vv. 14-150. In 10:1, Saul was “anointed” as “ruler” (dyg9n!, nāgîd); in 10:24, when chosen by lot, he is hailed as “king” (j`l,m,0ha yH9y4, y^echî hammelek, lit. “live, king!); but now he is clearly inaugurated as king (Ukl9m4y0av1, wayyamlikû).

Acts 8:1b-13

That day a severe persecution began against the church in Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout the countryside of Judea and Samaria. 2 Devout men buried Stephen and made loud lamentation over him. 3 But Saul was ravaging the church by entering house after house; dragging off both men and women, he committed them to prison.

4 Now those who were scattered went from place to place, proclaiming the word. 5 Philip went down to the city of Samaria and proclaimed the Messiah to them. 6 The crowds with one accord listened eagerly to what was said by Philip, hearing and seeing the signs that he did, 7 for unclean spirits, crying with loud shrieks, came out of many who were possessed; and many others who were paralyzed or lame were cured. 8 So there was great joy in that city.

9 Now a certain man named Simon had previously practiced magic in the city and amazed the people of Samaria, saying that he was someone great. 10 All of them, from the least to the greatest, listened to him eagerly, saying, "This man is the power of God that is called Great." 11 And they listened eagerly to him because for a long time he had amazed them with his magic. 12 But when they believed Philip, who was proclaiming the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. 13 Even Simon himself believed. After being baptized, he stayed constantly with Philip and was amazed when he saw the signs and great miracles that took place. (Acts 8:1b-13, NRSV)

On August 19, 2008 (Tuesday in the week of the Sunday closest to August 17, Year Two), comments were repeated from July 3, 2007 (Tuesday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 29, Year One), when comments were repeated with editing and supplement from August 22, 2006 ( (Tuesday in the week of the Sunday closest to August 17, Year Two), when comments were repeated from June 28, 2005 (Tuesday of the week of the Sunday closest to June 29, Year One). The revised comments are repeated here:

This reading brings us to a significant transition in the life of the early Christian community. On the day of Stephen’s death as the first Christian martyr, Luke tells us, “That day a severe persecution began against the church in Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout the countryside of Judea and Samaria” (Acts 8:1b). Luke has perhaps simplified the situation here. According to Beverly Roberts Gaventa, “that all Christians except the apostles left Jerusalem seems highly improbable in view of later references to the Jerusalem church (11:2, 22). More likely, Jewish Christians from the Diaspora [the group to which Stephen belonged] fled Jerusalem, leaving the Jerusalem church in the hands of local residents (see the Hebrews in 6:1-6)” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Acts 8:1b). She adds that “Luke’s portrait of the flight of all except the apostles, who have already resisted persecution, underscores their importance for the Jerusalem community” (ibid.).

After Stephen’s death, Luke tells us, “Devout men buried [him] and made loud lamentation over him” (v. 2). As noted above, his martyrdom marks a beginning of severe persecution for the Christian believers, for “Saul was ravaging the church by entering house after house; dragging off both men and women, he committed them to prison” (v. 3). Saul thus takes the lead in this persecution (cf. Gal. 1:13).

Luke makes the persecution a point of departure for the apostles’ mission to “be my [i.e., Jesus’] witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (1:8). With the departure of Christians, “all except the apostles,” from Jerusalem, the focus of Luke’s interest in the spreading of the gospel of Jesus Christ moves from “Jerusalem” to “Judea and Samaria” (8:1, 5, 28; cf. 1:8). “Now those who were scattered,” says Luke, “went from place to place, proclaiming the word” (v. 4). “Ironically,” says Christopher R. Matthews, “severe persecution leads to proclaiming the word in new places” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on Acts 8:4).

At this point we learn that “Philip went down to the city of Samaria and proclaimed the Messiah to them” (v. 5). According to the NRSV text note d, “other ancient authorities read a city [for ‘the city’]. There are good early witnesses (i.e. mss., etc.) for both readings (cf. Nestle-Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece, 26^th rev. ed., 1979, apparatus to Acts 8:5). Samaria was a city, the capital of North Israel, in Old Testament times. According to James D. Purvis:

During the Assyrian and Persian periods Samaria was the capital of the province of the same name. Following conquest by the Macedonians (332 B.C.) The city was rebuilt as a Greek polis (city). It was destroyed by John Hyrcanus in 108 B.C. and rebuilt magnificently by Herod the Great (ca. 30 B.C.), who renamed it Sebaste in honor of Augustus (Gk. Sebastos). The Greek name is still preserved in the name of the modern Ara village, Sebastiyeh. (Harper’s Bible Dictionary, 1985, s.v. Samaria, City of; so also in the 2^nd ed., 1996)

Given this renaming of Samaria as Sebaste, one might suppose that the definite article would be dropped by some scribes, changing “the city of Samaria” to “a city of Samaria. Gaventa explains “the city of Samaria [as] probably either Sebaste or Shechem (see. 7:16)” (op. cit., on v. 5). In this place, we are told, “The crowds with one accord listened eagerly to what was said by Philip, hearing and seeing the signs that he did, for unclean spirits, crying with loud shrieks, came out of many who were possessed; and many others who were paralyzed or lame were cured” (vv. 6-7). In consequence, “there was great joy in that city” (v. 8). The description of Phillip’s “signs” (8:6-8) compares with those of Peter and the other apostles (2:43; 3:1-8; 5:12). Gaventa observes, “The response in Samaria parallels the initial response in Jerusalem” (see 5:12-16)” (ibid., on vv. 6-8).

But one person’s response was perhaps less welcome than it might have been, for “a certain man named Simon had previously practiced magic in the city and amazed the people of Samaria, saying that he was someone great” (v. 9). Simon the magician had a considerable following. “All of them [i.e., the Samaritans], from the least to the greatest, listened to him eagerly, saying, ‘This man is the power of God that is called Great.’ And they listened eagerly to him because for a long time he had amazed them with his magic” (vv. 10-11). According to Matthews, “Acts displays great interest in distinguishing between magic and Christian signs (see 13:6-12; 19:13-20)” (op. cit., on v. 9). These followers of Simon changed their loyalties. “But when they believed Philip,” says Luke, “who was proclaiming the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women” (v. 12). Even Simon himself is said to have believed ( ejpivsteusen, episteusen, aorist [past] tense, and “after being baptized, he stayed constantly with Philip and was amazed when he saw the signs and great miracles that took place” (v. 13). According to Gaventa, “Simon’s baptism signals the superiority of Philip’s ministry, although vv. 18-19 demonstrate that Simon’s conversion is incomplete” (op. cit., on v. 13). Although Simon “believed,” his interest in “the signs and great miracles” signals something of his motivation (which will emerge in tomorrow’s reading).

Luke 22:63-71

63 Now the men who were holding Jesus began to mock him and beat him; 64 they also blindfolded him and kept asking him, "Prophesy! Who is it that struck you?" 65 They kept heaping many other insults on him.

66 When day came, the assembly of the elders of the people, both chief priests and scribes, gathered together, and they brought him to their council. 67 They said, "If you are the Messiah, tell us." He replied, "If I tell you, you will not believe; 68 and if I question you, you will not answer. 69 But from now on the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God." 70 All of them asked, "Are you, then, the Son of God?" He said to them, "You say that I am." 71 Then they said, "What further testimony do we need? We have heard it ourselves from his own lips!"(Luke 22:63-71, NRSV)

The following comments are based on relevant comments of December 16, 2008 (Tuesday in the week of the Third Sunday of Advent, Year One), when comments were repeated from July 2 and 3, 2007 (Monday and Tuesday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 29, Year One), when comments that were repeated with editing and supplement from June 28, 2005 (Tuesday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 29, Year One).

Today’s reading from Luke was included in the table of parallel passages used yesterday; see the separate file, Arrest, Denial, Mocking and Beating, Council. For comments on Matthew’s version, see the comments in the Archives for July 22-24, 2008 (Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to July 20, Year Two).

In Luke, after the account of Peter’s denials (Luke 22:54-62; cf. Mk. 14:66-72; Mt. 26:69-75; Jn. 18:15-18, 25-27), we are told how he was mocked and beaten. “Now the men who were holding Jesus began to mock him and beat him; they also blindfolded him and kept asking him, ‘Prophesy! Who is it that struck you?’ They kept heaping many other insults on him” (Lk. 22:63-35; cf. Mk. 14:65; Mt. 26:67). In Luke’s account this mocking and beating of Jesus (Lk. 22:63-65) occurs during a kind of “holding period” before the trial before the Council “when day came”: “When day came, the assembly of the elders of the people, both chief priests and scribes, gathered together, and they brought him to their council” (Lk. 22:66). In Mark’s account, similar actions come after the trial by night when the high priest said, “Why do we still need witnesses? You have heard his blasphemy!” and called for a decision (Mk. 14:63b, 64a; cf. Mt. 26:65b, 66a). In Luke’s version, says Eric Franklin, “Members of the council are spared the indignity of being involved in the horseplay with Jesus” (The Oxford Bible Commentary, 2001, p. 956, on Lk. 22:54-65). Franklin says that in Luke, the hearing “has less characteristics of a trial than have Matthew’s and Mark’s night session, however, for there are no witnesses, no formal accusations, and no condemnation of Jesus” (ibid., on vv. 66-71). Luke’s account does not mention the testimony of some, who said, “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands’” (Mk. 14:58; cf. Mt. 26:61; Jn. 2:19-22). “ Luke’s gospel gives little basis,” says Franklin, “for any suggestion that Jesus was hostile to the temple which rather acknowledges him as its lord” (ibid.).

According to Luke, before the Council Jesus is asked, “If you are the Messiah, tell us,” to which he replied, “If I tell you, you will not believe; and if I question you, you will not answer” (Lk. 22:67-68; cf. Mk. 14:61b; Mt. 26:63b). Then Jesus adds, “But from now on the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God” (Lk. 22:69), in language which reflects part of Jesus’ answer according to Mark. “I am; and ‘you will see the Son of Man seated at the right and of the Power,’ and ‘coming with the clouds of heaven’” (Mk. 14:62; cf. Mt. 26:64). According to C. Clifton Black, as revised by Adela Yarbro Collins, “The advent of a royal Son of Man combines imagery in Ps. 110:1; Dan. 7:13-14” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Mk. 14:62). They add that “The Power [is] a reference to the deity that may reflect contemporary and later respectful avoidance of pronouncing God’s name” (ibid.). As Franklin observes,

The council rather addresses directly the question of Jesus’ status. ‘If you are the Christ, tell us’. Jesus’ reply has two parts. vv. 67b-8 point to their total perversity. They will neither believe, nor even acknowledge, the truth. They will not accept him as Christ in the manner that they should, but they would like to hear from him a declaration of messiahship which could be reported to Pilate as subversive. Jesus refuses to fall into their trap but answers in a way that defines his status in terms which transcend their categories. From this point in time (emphatic in Luke), he will be exalted to the right hand of God. (loc. cit.)

As noted above, Mark’s version of Jesus response refers to the future, when the Son of Man is “seated at the right hand of the Power,” and is “coming with the clouds of heaven” (Mk. 14:62, citing Dan. 7:12 and Ps. 110:1. Luke’s version “makes no mention of a future, visible coming (Mk. 14:62),” says Franklin. “Jesus’ exaltation will be for the eyes of faith alone. It is that event which forms the contents of both his claims and the disciples’ belief” (ibid.). In Luke, the Council’s final question is, “are you, then, the Son of God?” (Lk. 22:70a); compare Mark’s version, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” (Mk. 14:61; cf. Mt. 26:63, with “the Messiah the Son of God” for Mark’s “the Son of the Blessed One”). But in Luke, who answers, “You say that I am” (v. 70b) this question comes after the reference to the Son of Man as “seated at the right hand of the power of God.” For the interrogators, the answer is an admission of guilt. “Then they said, ‘What further testimony do we need? We have heard it ourselves from his own lips!’ ” (v. 71). Franklin says this question “acknowledges the significance of the [preceding] declaration,” for “This [‘the Son of God’] has a deeper significance than ‘Christ’, and Franklin adds:

It recalls the second part of the angel’s declaration to Mary (1:35) and foreshadows the preaching in Acts (9:20; 13:33). In the light of Mt. 26:64, Jesus’ reply seems to be an acceptance of the implications of the question and a witness to their recognition of them. Their perversity however makes them disown him and refuse their own insights. Their accusations before Pilate reveal just how great that perversity is (23:2). (ibid.)

Luke thinks like a historian and emphasizes elements of the story that have implications for the longer perspective.

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net