1 Samuel 12:1-6 (7-15) 16-25

Samuel’s Farewell Address

12:1 Samuel said to all Israel, "I have listened to you in all that you have said to me, and have set a king over you. 2 See, it is the king who leads you now; I am old and gray, but my sons are with you. I have led you from my youth until this day. 3 Here I am; testify against me before the LORD and before his anointed. Whose ox have I taken? Or whose donkey have I taken? Or whom have I defrauded? Whom have I oppressed? Or from whose hand have I taken a bribe to blind my eyes with it? Testify against me and I will restore it to you." 4 They said, "You have not defrauded us or oppressed us or taken anything from the hand of anyone." 5 He said to them, "The LORD is witness against you, and his anointed is witness this day, that you have not found anything in my hand." And they said, "He is witness."

6 Samuel said to the people, "The LORD is witness, who appointed Moses and Aaron and brought your ancestors up out of the land of Egypt. 7 Now therefore take your stand, so that I may enter into judgment with you before the LORD, and I will declare to you all the saving deeds of the LORD that he performed for you and for your ancestors. 8 When Jacob went into Egypt and the Egyptians oppressed them, then your ancestors cried to the LORD and the LORD sent Moses and Aaron, who brought forth your ancestors out of Egypt, and settled them in this place. 9 But they forgot the LORD their God; and he sold them into the hand of Sisera, commander of the army of King Jabin of Hazor, and into the hand of the Philistines, and into the hand of the king of Moab; and they fought against them. 10 Then they cried to the LORD, and said, 'We have sinned, because we have forsaken the LORD, and have served the Baals and the Astartes; but now rescue us out of the hand of our enemies, and we will serve you.' 11 And the LORD sent Jerubbaal and Barak, and Jephthah, and Samson, and rescued you out of the hand of your enemies on every side; and you lived in safety. 12 But when you saw that King Nahash of the Ammonites came against you, you said to me, 'No, but a king shall reign over us,' though the LORD your God was your king. 13 See, here is the king whom you have chosen, for whom you have asked; see, the LORD has set a king over you. 14 If you will fear the LORD and serve him and heed his voice and not rebel against the commandment of the LORD, and if both you and the king who reigns over you will follow the LORD your God, it will be well; 15 but if you will not heed the voice of the LORD, but rebel against the commandment of the LORD, then the hand of the LORD will be against you and your king. 16 Now therefore take your stand and see this great thing that the LORD will do before your eyes. 17 Is it not the wheat harvest today? I will call upon the LORD, that he may send thunder and rain; and you shall know and see that the wickedness that you have done in the sight of the LORD is great in demanding a king for yourselves." 18 So Samuel called upon the LORD, and the LORD sent thunder and rain that day; and all the people greatly feared the LORD and Samuel.

19 All the people said to Samuel, "Pray to the LORD your God for your servants, so that we may not die; for we have added to all our sins the evil of demanding a king for ourselves." 20 And Samuel said to the people, "Do not be afraid; you have done all this evil, yet do not turn aside from following the LORD, but serve the LORD with all your heart; 21 and do not turn aside after useless things that cannot profit or save, for they are useless. 22 For the LORD will not cast away his people, for his great name's sake, because it has pleased the LORD to make you a people for himself. 23 Moreover as for me, far be it from me that I should sin against the LORD by ceasing to pray for you; and I will instruct you in the good and the right way. 24 Only fear the LORD, and serve him faithfully with all your heart; for consider what great things he has done for you. 25 But if you still do wickedly, you shall be swept away, both you and your king." (1 Samuel 12:1-25, NRSV)

On July 4, 2007 (Wednesday 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 29 2005 (Wednesday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 29, Year One); the revised comments are repeated here with editing and supplement:

Today’s reading is from 1 Samuel 12, which has been called “Samuel’s Farewell” (P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., I Samuel: a new translation, Anchor Bible, VIII, 1980, p. 208), though he is present for a confrontation with Saul in chapters 13 and 15, to anoint David as king in chapter 16, and after his death (25:1) he reappears–called up by the “medium” (“woman that hath a familiar spirit,” 1 Sam. 28:7 KJV, bOx-tlaf3Ba tw,xe, ’ēshet ba‘^alath-’ôv)–only to deliver bad news to Saul (28:14-19). The phrase translated “medium” (NRSV) has been translated as “necromancer” (William L. Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 1971, 10^th corrected impression 1988, s.v. hlAf3Ba, ba‘^alāh).

But chapter 12 marks a significant transition. Samuel has given Israel her first king. “Samuel said to all Israel, ‘I have listened to you in all that you have said to me, and have set a king (j`l,m,, melek, the normal word for ‘king’) over you” (1 Sam. 12:1), as they requested and God directed (8:4, 22). Samuel is old but he has led Israel from his youth. “See,” he says, “it is the king who leads you now; I am old and gray, but my sons are with you. I have led you from my youth until this day” (v. 2). Samuel claims to have led with justice and integrity. “Here I am; testify against me before the LORD and before his anointed. Whose ox have I taken? Or whose donkey have I taken? Or whom have I defrauded? Whom have I oppressed? Or from whose hand have I taken a bribe to blind my eyes with it? Testify against me and I will restore it to you” (v. 3). This claim is confirmed by the people. “They said, ‘You have not defrauded us or oppressed us or taken anything from the hand of anyone.’ He said to them, ‘The LORD is witness (dfe, ‘ēd) against you, and his anointed [i.e., Saul] is witness (dfe, ‘ēd) this day, that you have not found anything in my hand.’ And they said, ‘He is witness’ ” (vv. 4-5). According to Shimon Bar-Efrat, “Samuel asserts–and his assertion is confirmed by the people–that he never abused his office for his own profit (whereas corruption among leaders is widespread), implying that his rejection is unjustified and an act of ingratitude (cf. Num. 16:15)” (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, on 1 Sam. 12:2-5).

 (v. 2). He claims to have led with justice and integrity. “Whose ox have I taken? Or whose donkey have I taken? Or whom have I defrauded? Whom have I oppressed? Or from whose hand have I taken a bribe to blind my eyes with it? Testify against me and I will restore it to you” (v. 3) and they confirm his claim (v. 4). Samuel asks for confirmation–the equivalent for that day of a legal deposition? “The LORD is “witness” (dfe, ‘ēd) against you, and his anointed [Saul] is witness (dfe, ‘ēd) this day , that you have not found anything in my hand,” says Samuel, and the response is affirmative: “And they said, ‘He [i.e., God] is witness (dfe, ‘ēd)’ ” (v. 5). The last sentence translates two Hebrew words, (dfe rm,xy0ova, wayyō’mer ‘ēd, “And he [sic] said, ‘[he = God is] witness’.” According to P. A. H. de Boer, many Hebrew manuscripts have the plural verb (Liber Samuelis, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia [BHS], 1976, apparatus to 1 Sam. 12:5). The Septuagint text (Rahlfs) has the plural verb (ei\pan, eipan), though de Boer notes that the Septuagint ms. L has (kai; ei\pen oJ laovV (kai eipen ho laos), “and the people [singular] said.” The term “witness” (dfe, ‘ēd) points to the significance of Samuel’s claim and the people’s affirmation. According to Holladay, it means someone “who can testify personally to a fact or occurrence, in case of doubt” or someone “who gives corroborating testimony in court” (Lexicon, s.v. df, ‘ēd). God is my witness, says Samuel, and the claim is affirmed by the people.

In the next paragraph (omitted through verse 15 in the Book of Common Prayer references, included within parentheses in the Presbyterian and Lutheran references), it’s almost as though the LORD, who has been “witness” for Samuel, is now “witness” against the Israelites and their rebellious nature. He says, “your ancestors cried to the LORD” when oppressed, “and the LORD sent Moses and Aaron, who brought forth your ancestors out of Egypt, and settled them in this place” (v. 8). But when Samuel reports their rebellion, he moves quickly through murmurings and revolts in the wilderness to various rebellions recounted in the book of Judges (1 Sam. 12:9-11) and to the recent threat of “King Nahash of the Ammonites” (v. 12, referring to 10:27b-11:11). They then said “‘No, but a king shall reign over us,’ though,” says Samuel, “the LORD your God was your king” (v. 12). Bar-Efrat summarizes: “The LORD always delivered Israel from its enemies, even when their plight was caused by their own guilt, so there was no need to ask for a king in order to be delivered” (op. cit., on vv. 7-12). So Samuel says, “See, the LORD has set a king over you” (v. 13). Further stipulations are that both the people and the king must heed the LORD’s commandments, with good consequences, “it will be well” if they do (v. 14), but bad consequences if they don’t–“then the hand of the LORD will be against you and your king” (v. 15).

Samuel announces a sign. “Now therefore take your stand and see this great thing that the LORD will do before your eyes” (v. 16). He predicts a thunderstorm, which will threaten to ruin the crops: “Is it not the wheat harvest today? I will call upon the LORD, that he may send thunder and rain” (v. 17a). This he interprets as proving their wickedness in demanding a sign, for “you shall know and see that the wickedness that you have done in the sight of the LORD is great in demanding (lOxw4l9, liš’ôl) a king for yourselves” (v. 17b, cf. v. 19, below). “Demanding (vv. 17, 19),” says Steven L. McKenzie, “is another pun on ‘Saul’ ” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on vv. 16-18). One who has lived in the wheat-growing country of the American high plains will understand the devastation of an early summer rainstorm. And the storm came. “So Samuel called upon the LORD, and the LORD sent thunder and rain that day; and all the people greatly feared the LORD and Samuel” (v. 18). McCarter, who says that Samuel’s “farewell address is punctuated with a fresh demonstration of his prophetic power” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on 1 Sam. 12:1-25), cites verse 17 as an example. “The wheat harvest took place in early summer when thunder and rain were unnatural (Prov. 26:1) and unexpected, a fact that underscores Samuel’s special ability to invoke the Lord” (ibid., on 1 Sam. 12:17).

This sign was enough for the people, who say “to Samuel, ‘Pray to the LORD your God for your servants, so that we may not die; for we have added to all our sins the evil of demanding a king for ourselves’ ” (v. 19). “Shocked out of their refusal to see reality by the miracle of the thunderstorm,” says McCarter, “the people finally acknowledge their mistake and call on Samuel for help” (ibid., on vv. 18-19). Samuel reassures the people with words that, to some extent, anticipate Jesus’ words to the woman taken in adultery, “Go your way, and from now on do not sin” (Jn. 8:11). Samuel says to the people, “Do not be afraid; you have done all this evil, yet do not turn aside from following the LORD, but serve the LORD with all your heart; and do not turn aside after useless things (UhToha, hattōhû) that cannot profit or save, for they are useless (UhTo, tōhû)” (1 Sam. 12:20-21). According to Holladay, the word translated “useless” means “emptiness = nothingness, nonentity” here, and “solitude or emptiness” in Genesis 1:2 [“the earth was a formless void (UhbovA UhTo, tōhû wāvōhû),” NRSV] (Lexicon, s.v. UhTo, tōhû). McCarter says, “Useless things” here means “idols [and is] rendered ‘empty wind’ in Isa. 41:29 and ‘nothing’ in Isa. 44:9” (op. cit., on v. 21). The reassurance continues, “For the LORD will not cast away his people, for his great name's sake, because it has pleased the LORD to make you a people for himself” (1 Sam. 12:22). According to McKenzie, “the LORD’s reputation might be damaged if he destroyed them too readily; see Num. 14:13-16” (op. cit., on v. 22).

But Samuel is not about to simply go away. “Moreover as for me,” he says, “far be it from me that I should sin against the LORD by ceasing to pray for you; and I will instruct you in the good and the right way” (1 Sam. 12:23). Bar-Efrat says, “Samuel, whose authority is reconfirmed by the miracle, will continue to represent the people before God by means of prayer and represent God before the people by means of instruction” (op. cit., on v. 23). “With the advent of kingship,” says McCarter, “the prophet’s role is twofold: he will be an intercessor between Israel and the Lord and an advocate of morality and justice” (op. cit., on v. 23). The reading closes with an admonition from Samuel, “Only fear the LORD, and serve him faithfully with all your heart; for consider what great things he has done for you” (v. 24), and a warning, “But if you still do wickedly, you shall be swept away, both you and your king” (v. 25). Bar-Efrat observes that “the fate of the people and the king are intertwined” (op. cit., on v. 25).

Acts 8:14-25

14 Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. 15 The two went down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit 16 (for as yet the Spirit had not come upon any of them; they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus). 17 Then Peter and John laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. 18 Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles' hands, he offered them money, 19 saying, “Give me also this power so that anyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.” 20 But Peter said to him, “May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain God's gift with money! 21 You have no part or share in this, for your heart is not right before God. 22 Repent therefore of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that, if possible, the intent of your heart may be forgiven you. 23 For I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and the chains of wickedness." 24 Simon answered, "Pray for me to the Lord, that nothing of what you have said may happen to me.”

25 Now after Peter and John had testified and spoken the word of the Lord, they returned to Jerusalem, proclaiming the good news to many villages of the Samaritans. (Acts 8:14-25, NRSV)

On August 20, 2008 (Wednesday in the week of the Sunday closest to August 17, Year Two), comments were repeated from July 4, 2007 (Wednesday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 29, Year One), when *comments were repeated with editing and supplement from August 23, 2006 (Wednesday in the week of the Sunday closest to August 17, Year Two), when comments were repeated from June 29, 2005 (Wednesday of the week of the Sixth Sunday after Pentecost, Year One). The combined comments are repeated again here:

The apostles at Jerusalem have “ heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God” and they send “Peter and John to them” (Acts 8:14), which puts the blessing of the apostles on Philip’s work, the first significant development noted by Luke in the expansion of the new Christian movement beyond Jerusalem into “all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (1:8). When Peter and John arrive in Samaria, they pray for the Samaritan believers who have accepted Philip’s preaching “that they might receive the Holy Spirit” (8:15), for, as Luke explains, “as yet the Spirit had not come upon any of them; they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (v. 16). So “Peter and John laid their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit” (v. 17). If you are looking for a “proof text” for two works of grace, there it is! But why stop with two? Among American Friends with contacts in the “holiness tradition” of the Methodists, there was much agreement. But the Friend was likely to ask not, “What experiences have you had? but rather to ask, “How is it with you now, friend?” F. F. Bruce considers, but rejects the view “that what Peter and John did was to perform the rite of confirmation.” “If confirmation by an apostle were necessary for the reception of the Spirit,” he adds, “one might have expected this to be stated more explicitly in one or more of the relevant New Testament passages” (The Book of Acts, NICNT, rev. ed., 1988, p. 169, on Acts 8:15-17). After reference to Paul’s dealing with the Corinthians, Bruce continues,

The only near parallel to the present occasion is the exceptional case of the Ephesian disciples in 19:1-7. In general, it seems to be assumed throughout the New Testament that those who believe and are baptized have also the Spirit of God.

In the present instance, some special evidence may have been necessary to assure the Samaritans, so accustomed to being despised as outsiders by the people of Jerusalem, that they were fully incorporated into the new community of the people of God. . . . ‘The imposition of hands is then,’ in the words of G. W. H. Lampe, ‘primarily a token of fellowship and solidarity; it is only secondarily an effective symbol of the gift of the Spirit; it becomes such a symbol solely in virtue of being a sign of incorporation into the Church of the Spirit. (ibid., citing Lampe, The Seal of the Spirit, p. 70)

In Samaria, Simon recognized value in the experiences of the believers, but he sought the apostles’ gift for the wrong reasons: “Now when Simon saw that the Spirit was given through the laying on of the apostles' hands, he offered them money, saying, “Give me also this power so that anyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit” (vv. 18-19). Peter’s response is immediate and sharp. “May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain God’s gift with money!” (v. 20). Peter offers Simon a spiritual diagnosis, “You have no part or share in this, for your heart is not right before God” (v. 21), and directs him to repent: “Repent therefore of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that, if possible, the intent of your heart may be forgiven you” (v. 22). Peter further describes Simon’s condition. “For I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and the chains of wickedness” (v. 23). It was enough to cause Simon deep concern. “Pray for me to the Lord,” he asks of Peter, “that nothing of what you have said may happen to me” (v. 24). “Ironically,” says Beverly Roberts Gaventa, “the one earlier called the power of God (v. 10) now must seek Peter’s intercession” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Acts 8:24).

Whether Simon truly repented, we are not told. Ancient Christians associated Simon with some of the later heresies.

The enigmatic character of Simon Magus fascinated later Christians. Irenaeus identifies him as the founder of the ‘Simonian’ Gnostics (Adv. haer. 1.23). For Luke, however, the issue is not heresy but the illegitimate appropriation of divine power, and money (as so often) is a symptom of a deeper corruption. (Loveday Alexander, The Oxford Bible Commentary, 2001, p. 1038, on Acts 8:14-25)

In later centuries the practice of paying money for holy orders or church offices or positions was called “simony,” based on the request here of Simon Magus (Encyclopaedia Britannica, s.v. simony, online reference at http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9067868/simony, accessed again June 29, 2009). But the use of the term has broadened.

Simony is usually defined ‘a deliberate intention of buying or selling for a temporal price such things as are spiritual of [or?] annexed unto spirituals’. While this definition only speaks of purchase and sale, any exchange of spiritual for temporal things is simoniacal. Nor is the giving of the temporal as the price of the spiritual required for the existence of simony; according to a proposition condemned by Innocent XI (Denzinger-Bannwart, no. 1195) it suffices that the determining motive of the action of one party be the obtaining of compensation from the other. (The Catholic Encyclopedia online, s.v. simony, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14001a.htm (accessed again June 29, 2009)

The reading closes with the information that, “after Peter and John had testified and spoken the word of the Lord, they returned to Jerusalem, proclaiming the good news to many villages of the Samaritans” (v. 25).

Luke 23:1-12

Jesus before Pilate

23:1 Then the assembly rose as a body and brought Jesus before Pilate. 2 They began to accuse him, saying, "We found this man perverting our nation, forbidding us to pay taxes to the emperor, and saying that he himself is the Messiah, a king." 3 Then Pilate asked him, "Are you the king of the Jews?" He answered, "You say so." 4 Then Pilate said to the chief priests and the crowds, "I find no basis for an accusation against this man." 5 But they were insistent and said, "He stirs up the people by teaching throughout all Judea, from Galilee where he began even to this place."

Jesus before Herod

6 When Pilate heard this, he asked whether the man was a Galilean. 7 And when he learned that he was under Herod's jurisdiction, he sent him off to Herod, who was himself in Jerusalem at that time. 8 When Herod saw Jesus, he was very glad, for he had been wanting to see him for a long time, because he had heard about him and was hoping to see him perform some sign. 9 He questioned him at some length, but Jesus gave him no answer. 10 The chief priests and the scribes stood by, vehemently accusing him. 11 Even Herod with his soldiers treated him with contempt and mocked him; then he put an elegant robe on him, and sent him back to Pilate. 12 That same day Herod and Pilate became friends with each other; before this they had been enemies. (Luke 23:1-12, NRSV)

On July 4, 2007 (Wednesday in the week of the Fifth Sunday after Pentecost, references for the week of the Sunday closest to June 29, Year One), comments were based on those of June 29, 2005 (Wednesday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 29, Year One), with some editing and supplement, and some reference to comments on parallel accounts. For comments on the Trial before Pilate according to Mark 15:1-11, see the comments in the Archive for September 5, 2007 (Wednesday in the week of the Sunday closest to August 31, Year One); for parallel comments on the trials according to Matthew 27:1-23, see the comments in the Archives for July 25 and 26, 2008 (Friday and Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to July 20, Year Two); and for comments on the Trial according to John18:28-38, see the comments in the Archive for February 5, 2008 (Tuesday in the week of the Last Sunday after the Epiphany, Year Two).

In John, due to his account of a hearing before Annas (Jn. 18:13, 19-24) and his own version of Peter’s Denials (Jn. 18:17-18, 25-27), the hearing before Caiaphas gets short shrift (cf. Jn. 18:24, 28), but the trial before Pilate is lengthy in comparison with the parallel accounts. (See the comments on John mentioned above.) This lesson from Luke describes two hearings: Jesus before Pilate (Lk. 23:1-5), and Jesus before Herod Antipas (vv. 6-12). The latter is an event reported only by Luke. The table of parallel passages in the separate file, Pilate Questions Jesus. Refers Him to Herod, compares one verse (Mt. 27:12) or two (Mk. 15:3-4), from the trial before Pilate, to Herod’s unanswered question in Luke (Lk. 23:9).

In each of the Gospels the accounts of the trial before the Council (Sanhedrin) and of Peter’s denials lead directly to the trial before Pilate (Mt. 27:1-2; Mk. 15:1; Lk. 23:1; Jn. 18:28). Luke says, “Then the assembly (to; plh:qoV, to plēthos, cf. to; presbutevrion tou: laou: . . . eijV to; sunevdrion aujtw:n, to presbyterion tou laou . . . eis to sunedrion autōn, ‘the assembly of the elders of the people . . . to their council [Sanhedrin]) rose as a body and brought Jesus before Pilate” (Lk. 23:1; cf. Mk. 15:1; Mt. 27:1-2; Jn. 18:28).

Before Pilate, the accusation is designed to suggest political rebellion. “They began to accuse him, saying, ‘We found this man perverting our nation, forbidding us to pay taxes to the emperor, and saying that he himself is the Messiah, a king” (Lk. 23:2). According to Marion Lloyd Soards, “The charge is phrased to sound like treason” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on Lk. 23:2). It is certainly not clear that Jesus forbade the Jews to pay taxes to the emperor (Lk. 20:20-26) or personally claimed to be the Messiah, though he didn’t correct Peter’s assertion of that (Mt. 16:16; Mk. 8:29; Lk. 9:20). He did not make public claims of being the Messiah–he told the disciples not to say so (Mt. 16:20; Mk. 8:30; Lk. 9:21)–but under oath he did not deny it before the Council (Mk. 14:61-62; Mt. 26:64; cf. the equivocal admissions in Luke 22:67-70). Nevertheless, in each Gospel, Pilate assumes that Jesus has claimed to be the king. According to each of the Gospels, “Pilate asked him, ‘Are you the King of the Jews?’ ” (Mk. 15:2a; Mt. 27:11b; Lk. 23:3a; Jn. 18:33b). In each of the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus’ response is, “You say so” (Mk. 15:2b; Mt. 27:11c; Lk. 23:3b). In John, Jesus replies with a question for Pilate. “Do you ask this on your own, or did others tell you about me?” (Jn. 18:34), and follows with a redefinition of kingship. “My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my followers would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not from here” (v. 36).

In Luke, Jesus’ brief answer is enough to call forth Pilate’s admission “to the chief priests and the crowds, ‘I find no basis for an accusation against this man” (Lk. 23:4; cf. Jn. 19:4). According to Luke, Pilate declares Jesus, if not innocent, at least, not guilty, at this point. According to Soards, Pilate refused to take religious ideas in a political sense. Here, and later, Pilate sought to free Jesus but then yielded to pressures” (op. cit., on v. 4). In Mark and Matthew, Pilate’s belief–conviction–of Jesus’ innocence is not stated so plainly, but we are told that “he realized that it was out of jealously that the chief priests had handed him over” (Mk. 15:10; cf. Mt. 27:18 and the warning of Pilate’s wife, v. 19).

In Luke, Pilate’s tentative “not guilt” verdict is protested. “But they [‘the assembly,’ v. 1] were insistent and said, ‘He stirs up the people by teaching throughout all Judea from Galilee where he began even to this place’ ” (Lk. 23:5). And, in an account presented only by Luke, we are told that Pilate sees an opportunity to “pass the buck,” as we say. Upon learning that Jesus began in Galilee (Lk. 23:5), “he asked whether the man was a Galilean” (v. 6). “And when he [Pilate] learned that he [Jesus] was under Herod’s jurisdiction, he sent him off to Herod, who was himself in Jerusalem at the time” (v. 7). This was Herod Antipas, one of the sons of Herod the Great, who was Tetrarch (not quite king) over Galilee and Perea. “When Herod saw Jesus,” says Luke, “he was very glad, for he had been wanting to see him for a long time, because he had heard about him and was hoping to see him perform some sign” (v. 8). In this hope, Herod was frustrated, for “he questioned him at some length, but Jesus gave him no answer” (v. 9). Jesus’ accusers, of course, had followed him from before Pilate to before Herod. “The chief priests and the scribes stood by, vehemently accusing him” (v. 10). Herod apparently joins in the spirit of the occasion, for, we are told, he, “with his soldiers treated him with contempt and mocked him; then he put an elegant robe on him and sent him back to Pilate” (v. 11). According to David L. Tiede, revised by Christopher R. Matthews, “A hearing before Herod, found only in Luke, brings more mocking and another verdict of innocence (v. 15)” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Lk. 23:6-12). “The elegant robe,” they say, “suggests a royal mockery (see also 22:63; cf. Mk. 15:16-20)” (ibid., on v. 11).

“That same day,” says Luke, as today’s reading closes, “Herod and Pilate became friends with each other; before this they had been enemies” (v. 12). According to Tiede and Matthews, “the friendship of Herod and Pilate is an unholy collusion (see Acts 4:26-28, citing Ps. 2:2; cf. 1 Cor. 2:8). Eric Franklin finds this event to be “strange reading” because, “to hand over responsibility to a non-Roman would be unusual.” He adds that, “Pilate, however seems to be associating Herod with his own involvement rather than handing over the case to him” (Eric Franklin, The Oxford Bible Commentary, p. 956, on Lk. 22:1-15). In spirit and culture, at least, the Herodians were more Roman than Jewish, so the new friendship (v. 12) is hardly surprising.

On the Questioning of the Trial Scene before Pilate (cf. the comments on Mark 15:1-11, from September 5, 2007, noted above)

Some ascribe the description in the Gospels of Pilate’s hesitation before condemning Jesus (Mk. 15:9-10; cf. Mt. 27:17-20; Jn. 18:39) to a Christian tendency “to take the blame away from the Romans and put it on the shoulders of the Jewish authorities” (C. M. Tuckett, The Oxford Bible Commentary, p. 919, on Mk. 15:1-15). Tucket explains further: The picture of Pilate here as weak and vacillating, anxiously trying to please the Jews, in no way squares with what we know from elsewhere of the man, viz., a cruel tyrant who would have not had the slightest compunction in executing an odd Jew or two to keep the peace.” But Raymond E. Brown has a rather different assessment of the evidence:

Outside Christian tradition the picture of Pilate given by Josephus is not favorable; Philo’s depiction is extremely hostile, and even Roman sources do not ennoble Pilate. Most often this harsh portrayal has been accepted as history over against Christian amelioration, but now revisionist scholars are being more cautious. They point out that the Roman historian Tacitus disliked the equestrian class to which Pilate belonged and did not always do justice to members of that class who held public office. In his Ant. Josephus added to the Pilate stories hostile details absent from the earlier War, thus raising the issue of accuracy and veracity. (Brown, The Death of the Messiah, I, 1994, p. 697).

Compare selections from a review of Helen Bond, Pontius Pilate in history and interpretation (Society for New Testament Studies, Monograph Series 100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), reviewed by Elizabeth Amanda Howey (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/bmcr/1999/1999-09-19.html, accessed again June 29, 2009; copy and paste the URL):

Having placed Pilate in context, B. then approaches her textual sources. Her primary concerns are the two images of Pilate derived from academic interpretations of the Jewish and Christian texts. Readings of Jewish source material invariably portray Pilate as a headstrong individual given to insensitivity and poor judgement. His period of control is marked by acts of deliberate anti-Semitic provocation and tyrannical suppression.

Traditional sources for such interpretation are Philo's Legato ad Gail, Josephus' War and the Antiquities of the Jews. Traditional interpretation of these since Schurer's Geschichte des Judischen Volkes have afforded great credibility to these accounts of heavy handed, insensitive behaviour. Stauffer and Smallwood in particular have combined textual interpretation with study of numismatic designs to argue for a conscious anti-Semitic policy in Pilate's government.

B. overturns such readings, arguing that they are indicative of shallow and generalised readings of a more complex situation. In her re-reading of the incident of the Aniconic shields in the Legatio, B. argues that Philo's gloss of political rhetoric and theological motivation exaggerates the malicious intent in an otherwise carefully planned act of Imperial piety. B. cites in particular Pilate's avoidance of Imperial imagery, limited inclusion of inscription material and placement of shields in buildings reserved for Roman administration and activity.

Again, in her discussion of Josephus, B. concentrates on the historical subtext of the pieces, not their accusations. The concluding image of Pilate is once again favourable. B. accepts that Pilate was by no means infallible. He was certainly not above utilising forcible measure of control, as the extracts concerning the Temple funds and the Samaritan uprising indicate. But equally in the account of the Imperial standards, B. provides valid evidence of a flexible Governor willing to extend a certain leniency to his subjects.

Raymond E. Brown does not go so far as to conclude that the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ hearing before Pilate are “historical,” but with a couple exceptions–“Both John and Luke are stylized in having Pilate three times declare Jesus innocent–he says, “the NT descriptions of Pilate with their variations are not patently implausible. . . . the theory that the Gospels exculpate the Romans by creating a totally fictional, sympathetic Pilate has been overdone” (op. cit., I, 704).

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net