2 Chronicles. 6:32-7:7

32 "Likewise when foreigners, who are not of your people Israel, come from a distant land because of your great name, and your mighty hand, and your outstretched arm, when they come and pray toward this house, 33 may you hear from heaven your dwelling place, and do whatever the foreigners ask of you, in order that all the peoples of the earth may know your name and fear you, as do your people Israel, and that they may know that your name has been invoked on this house that I have built.

34 "If your people go out to battle against their enemies, by whatever way you shall send them, and they pray to you toward this city that you have chosen and the house that I have built for your name, 35 then hear from heaven their prayer and their plea, and maintain their cause.

36 "If they sin against you-for there is no one who does not sin-and you are angry with them and give them to an enemy, so that they are carried away captive to a land far or near; 37 then if they come to their senses in the land to which they have been taken captive, and repent, and plead with you in the land of their captivity, saying, 'We have sinned, and have done wrong; we have acted wickedly'; 38 if they repent with all their heart and soul in the land of their captivity, to which they were taken captive, and pray toward their land, which you gave to their ancestors, the city that you have chosen, and the house that I have built for your name, 39 then hear from heaven your dwelling place their prayer and their pleas, maintain their cause and forgive your people who have sinned against you. 40 Now, O my God, let your eyes be open and your ears attentive to prayer from this place.

41 "Now rise up, O LORD God, and go to your resting place,

you and the ark of your might.

Let your priests, O LORD God, be clothed with salvation,

and let your faithful rejoice in your goodness.

42 O LORD God, do not reject your anointed one.

Remember your steadfast love for your servant David." [cf. Ps. 132:8-10]

7:1 When Solomon had ended his prayer, fire came down from heaven and consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices; and the glory of the LORD filled the temple. 2 The priests could not enter the house of the LORD, because the glory of the LORD filled the LORD's house. 3 When all the people of Israel saw the fire come down and the glory of the LORD on the temple, they bowed down on the pavement with their faces to the ground, and worshiped and gave thanks to the LORD, saying,

"For he is good,

for his steadfast love endures forever."

4 Then the king and all the people offered sacrifice before the LORD. 5 King Solomon offered as a sacrifice twenty-two thousand oxen and one hundred twenty thousand sheep. So the king and all the people dedicated the house of God. 6 The priests stood at their posts; the Levites also, with the instruments for music to the LORD that King David had made for giving thanks to the LORD-for his steadfast love endures forever-whenever David offered praises by their ministry. Opposite them the priests sounded trumpets; and all Israel stood.

7 Solomon consecrated the middle of the court that was in front of the house of the LORD; for there he offered the burnt offerings and the fat of the offerings of well-being because the bronze altar Solomon had made could not hold the burnt offering and the grain offering and the fat parts. (2 Chronicles 6:32-7:7, NRSV)

On September 3, 2007 (Monday in the week of the Fourteenth Sunday after Pentecost, references for the week of the Sunday closest to August 31, Year One), comments were repeated from August 29, 2005 (Monday in the week of the Sunday closest to August 31, Year One); the comments are repeated again here with editing and supplement:

Today’s reading continues Solomon’s prayer of dedication for the temple from 1 Kings chapter 8, but continues in the parallel in 2 Chronicles, chapter 6. See yesterday’s comments on the parallel passages and see the compared texts in the separate file Solomon’s Prayer of Dedication.

According to Gary Knoppers, commenting on the 2 Chronicles version of this prayer of dedication, “The heart of the prayer of dedication ([2 Chron. 6:]22-40 [cf. 1 Kgs. 8:36-53) consists of seven petitions detailing a variety of predicaments in which the nation may find herself” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on 1 Chron. 6:12-40). The first four petitions were included in yesterday’s reading. In today’s reading, the fifth of Solomon’s seven petitions (2 Chron. 6:32-33; 1 Kgs. 8:41-43) asks God to hear the prayers of [a] foreigner[s] who “come[s . . . and pray[s] toward this house.” God is asked to answer these prayers “in order that/so that all the peoples of the earth may know your name and fear you, as do your people Israel, and [so] that they may know that your name has been invoked on this house that I have built” (2 Chron. 6:33b; 2 Kgs. 8:43b). The sixth petition (2 Chron. 6:34-35; 1 Kgs. 8:44-45) asks for answer to prayers offered “if your people go out to battle against their enemies[-y]” (2 Chron. 6:34a; 1 Kgs. 8:44a). The seventh petition (2 Chron. 6:36-39; 1 Kgs. 8:46; 50a) is related to the sixth, but assumes that the people “are carried away captive to a land [to the land of the enemy] far [off] or near” (2 Chron. 6:36; 1 Kgs. 8:46), and they then repent (2 Chron. 6:37-38; 1 Kgs. 8:47-48). Solomon asks that God “hear from [in] heaven your dwelling place their prayer and their plea[s], maintain their cause and forgive your people who have sinned against you, [and all their transgressions that they have committed against you]” (2 Chron. 6:39; 1 Kgs. 8:49-50a). (Note: square brackets [] indicate minor differences in the two accounts of the prayer.)

After these petitions, the 2 Chronicles account continues with text from Psalm 132:8-10, also with minor variations in wording: adding “Now” at the beginning, and “God” after “O LORD” (2 Chron. 6:41a; cf. Ps. 132:8), repeating “O LORD God” after “Let your priests,” and changing “shout for joy” to “rejoice in your goodness” (2 Chron. 6:41b; cf. Ps. 132:9). The half-lines of Psalm 132:10 are inverted and reworded a little more that verses 8-9, but are still recognizable:

For your servant David’s sake

Do not turn away the face of your anointed one. (Ps. 132:10, NRSV)

O LORD God, do not reject your anointed one.

Remember your steadfast love for your servant David. (2 Chron. 6:42, NRSV)

These lines are not found in the 1 Kings version, but the concluding reference is to the Mosaic covenant: “For you have separated them from among all the peoples of the earth, to be your heritage, just as you promised through Moses, your servant, when you brought our ancestors out of Egypt, O Lord GOD (hvhy ynAdox3, ’ ^adōnâ YHWH)” (2 Kgs. 8:53). There is no reference in the 1 Kings version to the “fire” that “came down from heaven and consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices,” nor at this point to “the glory of the LORD” which “filled the temple” (2 Chron. 7:1). Knoppers says, “The divine consecration of the burnt offering and the sacrifices by fire, not found in 1 Kings 8-9, dramatically legitimates the Jerusalem Temple as an enduring fixture of Israelite life (Lev. 9:24; 1 Kings 18:36-39; 1 Chr. 21:26)” (op. cit., on 2 Chron. 7:1). People responded to the fire from heaven with the refrain from Psalm 136, “For he is good, for his steadfast love endures forever” (2 Chron. 7:3b; cf. the second line of each verse of Ps. 136). The two accounts agree on the number of animals sacrificed: “twenty-two thousand oxen and one hundred twenty thousand sheep” (2 Chron. 7:5; 1 Kgs. 8:63). The 2 Chronicles account, perhaps reminded by the use of Psalm texts, includes references to the Levites and their “instruments for music to the LORD that King David had made for giving thanks to the LORD–for his steadfast love endures forever,” and to the priests who “sounded trumpets” (2 Chron. 7:6; cf. David’s plans for music in the temple, 1 Chron. 25).

James 2:1-13

2:1 My brothers and sisters, do you with your acts of favoritism really believe in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ? 2 For if a person with gold rings and in fine clothes comes into your assembly, and if a poor person in dirty clothes also comes in, 3 and if you take notice of the one wearing the fine clothes and say, "Have a seat here, please," while to the one who is poor you say, "Stand there," or, "Sit at my feet," 4 have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts? 5 Listen, my beloved brothers and sisters. Has not God chosen the poor in the world to be rich in faith and to be heirs of the kingdom that he has promised to those who love him? 6 But you have dishonored the poor. Is it not the rich who oppress you? Is it not they who drag you into court? 7 Is it not they who blaspheme the excellent name that was invoked over you?

8 You do well if you really fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." 9 But if you show partiality, you commit sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. 10 For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. 11 For the one who said, "You shall not commit adultery," also said, "You shall not murder." Now if you do not commit adultery but if you murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty. 13 For judgment will be without mercy to anyone who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment. (James 2:1-13, NRSV)

On November 15, 2008 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to November 9, Year Two), comments were repeated with editing and supplement from September 3, 2007 (Monday in the week of the Sunday closest to August 31, Year One), when comments were repeated from November 18, 2006 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to November 9, Year Two), when they were combined with revision and supplement from November 13, 2004 (Saturday of the week of the Sunday closest to November 9, Year Two) and from August 29, 2005 (Monday in the week of the Sunday closest to August 31, Year One); the combined comments are repeated again here:

James addresses rich people with warnings about their greed and unjust treatment of workers in James 5:1-6, but in the present passage, the advice is to the leaders of the Christian community not to show partiality by discrimination in the ways they welcome rich people and poor people. Both passages show an important concern for all human beings, especially the poor and under privileged. James warns against favoritism, discrimination and partiality. “My brothers and sisters, do you with your acts of favoritism really believe in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ?” (2:1 NRSV). The question form–rhetorical question–of this verse represents a change from the imperative form of earlier translations, for example, “My brethren, show no partiality as you hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory” (RSV, cf. AV/KJV; TNIV). The Greek New Testament of Westcott and Hort (1881, 1896) punctuated this verse as a question, and was followed by a reading in the margin of the English Revised Version (ERV 1881) (cf. Kurt Aland and others, edd., The Greek New Testament, 3^rd ed., 1975, apparatus for Jas. 2:1). As a rhetorical question, introduced by the negative particle mhv (mē), a negative response is clearly implied: “My brothers and sisters, with your acts of favoritism you don’t really believe in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, do you?” And the implied response is, “No, of course not!” In the context of this Epistle, this is a strong equivalent of the imperative form (RSV and others noted above).

James illustrates what he means by partiality. “For if a person with gold rings and in fine clothes comes into your assembly, and if a poor person in dirty clothes also comes in, and if you take notice of the one wearing the fine clothes and say, ‘Have a seat here, please,’ while to the one who is poor you say, ‘Stand there,’ or, ‘Sit at my feet,’ have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts?” (vv. 2-4). This complex sentence concludes with another rhetorical question, this time introduced by the negative particle ouj (ou), implying the affirmative response, “Yes, of course we have made such distinctions” (cf. NRSV, AV/KJV, TNIV and others). This example, says Cain Hope Felder, is “a flagrant case of class discrimination” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Jas. 2:2-4). The setting is the Christian “assembly” (sunagwghv, synagogē, v. 2), but the lesson applies to all of life. We should not dishonor the poor, in this way or any other. “Listen, my beloved brothers and sisters. Has not God chosen the poor (oiJ ptwcoiv, hoi ptōchoi, cf. Mt. 5:3; Lk. 6:20) in the world to be rich in faith and to be heirs of the kingdom that he has promised to those who love him? But you have dishonored the poor” (vv. 5, 6a). Sophie Laws, revised by Walter T. Wilson, agrees: “This verse may echo Jesus’ blessing on the poor; see Mt. 5:3; Lk. 6:20)” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Jas. 2:5). James points out the irony in such treatment of the poor by Christian believers with more rhetorical questions, also implying affirmative answers. “Is it not (oujc, ouch) the rich who oppress you? Is it not (kaiv, kai, lit. ‘and,’ continuing the implied form of the question) they who drag you into court?” (v. 6b). More than that, asks James, “Is it not (oujk, ouk) they who blaspheme the excellent name that was invoked over you?” (v. 7). Laws and Wilson say, “Christians were baptized in the name of Jesus (see Acts 2:38; 1 Cor 6:11), which was probably invoked over them as part of the baptismal ritual” (ibid., on v. 7).

“You do well,” says James, “if you really fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself’ ” (v. 8, citing Lev. 19:18, which both Jesus [Mt. 22:39-40; Mk. 12:31] and Paul [Rom. 13:8-10] use as a summary of part of the Decalogue). According to Felder, “the royal law [is] a designation of Lev. 19:18 that is unique to James. He attributes prominence to this precept because of its elevated status in the teachings of Jesus (Mt. 22:39; Mk. 12:31; Lk. 10:27; cf. John 13:34 and Gal. 5:14; Rom. 13:9)” (op. cit., on v. 8). Laws and Wilson present a similar explanation. “It [i.e., Lev. 19:18] may be called royal law because of the importance he [Jesus] gave it or because it was seen as the law of the kingdom he preached” (op. cit., on v. 8).

Showing “partiality” is called a sin against “the royal law”: “But if you show partiality, you commit sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors” (v. 9). According to Laws and Wilson, “James’s rejection of favoritism (v. 1) in social relations leads to a rejection of partiality (v. 9) in observing the law” (ibid., on vv. 8-13). “Concern for impartiality in the assembly originated,” says Felder, “as part of the Hebrew Bible’s social legislation (e.g., Deut. 15 and Lev. 19)” (op. cit., on v. 9). James says that the law is broken by breaking one of its stipulations. “For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it” (v. 10). He illustrates by quoting from the Ten Commandments. “For the one who said, ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ also said, ‘You shall not murder.’ Now if you do not commit adultery but if you murder, you have become a transgressor of the law.” (v. 11, citing Exod. 20:13, 14; Deut 5:17, 18, in reverse order, with adultery before murder). “Jews,” say Laws and Wilson, “would similarly have insisted that their law must be kept whole and intact. James cites only the Decalogue (Ex. 20:13-14; Deut. 5:17-18, though, which suggests that he may be working here with a more focused view of the ‘whole law’ ” (op. cit., on vv. 10-11). James B. Addison criticizes “many . . . of the rabbis” for a more lenient view,

[They made] a fundamental mistake: they sought, in effect, to make grace part of the code of law, by glossing over the distinction between law and grace, by representing that in many matters a sin was not a sin, or, in small matters, that a law was not a law, and that even when it was a sin or a law a man could run a sort of credit and debit account with God, of good deeds and bad, and so need not try to do more than keep the balance on the right side. (The Epistle of James, NICNT, 1976, p. 116-117, on Jas. 2:10-11)

After citing what he sees as examples of inconsistency, for example, “The Sabbath weighs against all the precepts: if they keep it, they are reckoned as having done all” (cited from Shemoth Rabba xxv), Addison concludes, “What, then, is James’s objection to the Jewish attempts to humanize their cherished legalism? We suggest it is in his righteous insistence that to say a law is not a law, or a sin is not a sin, can lead only to evil, for example partiality” (ibid., p. 117). He adds,

God, as the Jews always knew is merciful to sinners, but not by any provision of the law. Those who seek to condone what they consider their excusable breaches of God’s Law are ipso facto closing their hearts to repentance, for which ‘God normally gives us time. No one can claim pardon for his sins; but, by his grace, if we sincerely repent, we may hopefully pray to be forgiven. (ibid.)

In his own way, James emphasizes the need for mercy. “So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty,” he says. “For judgment will be without mercy to anyone who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment” (vv. 12-13). His main point seems to be that failing to keep one of the laws makes a person a transgressor, rather than an emphasis on love of neighbor as a comprehensive summary of the law. On the analogy of the (old) Jewish law (vv. 9-11), the Christian law, the “law of liberty” (v. 12), has a place for both law and mercy, but accountability remains. We are to show mercy if we expect to receive it (v. 13).

Mark 14:53-65

Jesus’ Trial before Caiaphas

53 They took Jesus to the high priest; and all the chief priests, the elders, and the scribes were assembled. 54 Peter had followed him at a distance, right into the courtyard of the high priest; and he was sitting with the guards, warming himself at the fire. 55 Now the chief priests and the whole council were looking for testimony against Jesus to put him to death; but they found none. 56 For many gave false testimony against him, and their testimony did not agree. 57 Some stood up and gave false testimony against him, saying, 58 "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.' " 59 But even on this point their testimony did not agree. 60 Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, "Have you no answer? What is it that they testify against you?" 61 But he was silent and did not answer. Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?" 62 Jesus said, "I am; and

'you will see the Son of Man

seated at the right hand of the Power,'

and 'coming with the clouds of heaven.' "

63 Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "Why do we still need witnesses? 64 You have heard his blasphemy! What is your decision?" All of them condemned him as deserving death. 65 Some began to spit on him, to blindfold him, and to strike him, saying to him, "Prophesy!" The guards also took him over and beat him. (Mark 14:53-65, NRSV)

On September 3, 2007 (Monday in the week of the Fourteenth Sunday after Pentecost, references for the week of the Sunday closest to August 31, Year One), comments were repeated with editing and supplement from August 29, 2005 (Monday in the week of the Sunday closest to August 31, Year One). Those interested may wish to compare comments on Matthew’s version of Jesus’ Trial before Caiaphas in the Archive for July 23, 2008 (Wednesday in the week of the Sunday closest to July 20, Year Two), and/or comments on Luke’s version in the Archives for June 30, 2009, two months ago (Tuesday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 29, Year One). Parallel accounts are presented in the separate file, Jesus’ Trial before Caiaphas.

All the Gospels report that after his arrest Jesus was taken to the high priest (Mt. 26:57; Mk. 14:53; Lk. 22:54a; Jn. 18:13), and that Peter followed (Mt. 26:58; Mk. 14:54; Lk. 22:54b). Matthew names the priest, “Caiaphas” (Mt. 26:57). Mark’s version is similar to Matthew’s, but though he refers to “the high priest” six times in this chapter (Mk. 14:53 here, and vv. 43, 60, 61, 63, 66), he never uses the name “Caiaphas.” Luke’s wording refers in general to “chief priests and scribes” who were “gathered together, and . . . brought him to their council” (Lk. 22:66). John not only names Caiaphas (Jn. 18:13, 14, 24, 28), but also his “father-in-law,” Annas (v. 13). In John, this initial hearing takes place before Annas, who then sends Jesus to Caiaphas (v. 24). But John has previously told us how Caiaphas unwittingly pointed to the significance of Jesus’ death. “Caiaphas was the one who had advised the Jews that it was better to have one person die for the people” (Jn.18:14; cf. 11:49-50). While the ensuing dialogue in John (18:19-23) differs from that of Matthew (26:63-68) and Mark (14:60-65), and also from the abbreviated version in Luke (22:67-71), some have, nevertheless, judged that an attempt to reconcile the accounts by some form of rearrangement. “A number have proposed translating the aorist [Jn.] 18:24 as a pluperfect: ‘Annas had sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest,’ namely, before anything narrated in 18:15ff.,” says Raymond E. Brown (The Death of the Messiah, vol. 1, 1994, p. 407). Another, A. Mahoney, resorts to textual emendation. In 18:24, in place of dedemenon [dedemevnon] (‘bound’), he would read de menōn [de; mevnwn]: ‘But Annas, remaining (after the departure of Caiaphas) sent him to Caiaphas. Caiaphas was with Annas when Jesus was interrogated, but after the interrogation he went on to where the Sanhedrin was assembling (Mahoney, cited by Brown, Ibid.). Brown himself objects:

I agree with those scholars who distrust all such rearrangement and rewriting and accept the text as it now stands. Indeed, in Johannine logic there is no insurmountable problem about the prominent role attributed to Annas in [Jn.] 18:13-23 and the mention (without detailed narrative) of Caiaphas in 18:24, 28a. Throughout John we hear of dramatis personae who have no (or no significant) role in the Synoptics. The references to Annas alongside Caiaphas in Luke 3:2 and Acts 4:6 may well mean that Christian tradition considered both those high priests significant in the Jesus story, and John may have developed in his own way the significance of Annas. Indeed, if, as I have suggested above, there was no formal Sanhedrin trial of Jesus on the night before he died but only an interrogation, historically Annas might have been the interrogator. (Brown, pp. 407-408)

After reporting that Jesus was taken to the high priest, Matthew and Mark proceed immediately with the account of the hearing (Mt. 26:59-68; Mk. 14:55-65), but Luke and John, following up on the reference to Peter, include the account of his denials here (Lk. 22:56-62; Jn. 18:15-18, 25-27, in two scenes; cf. the later placement in Mt. 26:69-75; Mk. 14:66-72). Luke’s report also differs in some details because, by his account, the hearing was postponed until daylight (Lk. 22:66). As the hearing begins “the chief priests and the whole council were looking for testimony against Jesus to put him to death” (Mk. 14:55; cf. Mt. 26:59, “. . . looking for false testimony against Jesus so that they might put him to death,” thus adding the word “false” and rewording the purpose clause). Their attempt failed (Mt. 26:60; Mk. 14:56), though it appears for a while that the council will succeed. “At last two [false witnesses] came forward and said, ‘This fellow said, “I am able to destroy the temple of God and to build it in three days” ’ ” (Mt. 26:60b, 61; cf. Mk. 14:57-58, where a qualifier is used, “another [temple], not made with hands”; cf. Jn. 2:19, 21). But according to Mark, “even on this point their testimony did not agree” (Mk. 14:59). Jesus’ teaching, but not “false testimony” about it as such, is an issue in John’s account (Jn. 18:19-21), but there is no direct reference in Luke’s account except as implied in the question, “If you are the Messiah, tell us” (Lk. 22:67).

The high priest becomes impatient. “Have you no answer?” he asks. “What is it that they testify against you?” (Mk. 14:60; cf. Mt. 26:62). But Jesus remains “silent,” and does not answer (Mk. 14:61a; Mt. 26:63a). And the high priest’s second question comes to the point: “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?” (Mk. 14:61). In Matthew’s account he puts Jesus under oath, “I put you under oath before the living God; tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God” (Mt. 26:63; cf. “If you are the Messiah, tell us,” Lk. 22:67a, “Are you, then, the Son of God?” (v. 69a). Jesus’ response is similar in Mark and Matthew, “I am; and ‘you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power,’ and ‘coming with the clouds of heaven’ ” (Mk. 14:62, citing Dan. 7:13 and Ps. 110:1), but Matthew’s version has some nuance: “You have said so. But I tell you, From now on you will se the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven” (Mt. 26:64). Luke’s version has more nuance: “If I tell you, you will not believe; and if I question you, you will not answer. But from now on the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the power of God” (Lk. 22:67b-69). “You say that I am” (v. 70b). But, according to Richard A. Horsley, with the reference to the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power [God] and coming with the clouds of heaven, “Jesus gives the high priest all he needs for condemnation” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Mk. 14:61-62). That is true from the high priest’s perspective.

When asked point-blank, Jesus did not evade the truth, but affirmed his identity. According to Matthew, Jesus continued with a statement which combines Daniel 7:13 with Psalm 110:1. The words “one like a human being” (Dan. 7:13 NRSV), represent an interpretation of what is literally “like a son of man” (wn!x$ rbaK4, k^ebar ’ ^enāsh) in the Aramaic (wJV uiJo;V ajnqrwvpou, hos huios anthrōpou LXX) and are rendered as “the Son of Man” (to;n uiJo;n tou: ajnqrwvpou, ton huion tou anthrōpou) in Matthew, a phrase consistently applied to Jesus in the Gospels. Being “seated at the right hand of Power” refers to being seated at God’s right hand, based on Psalm 110:1, where “the LORD [God] says to my lord [understood as the Messiah], ‘Sit at my right hand’.” The phrase “coming on the clouds” corresponds to the Septuagint (LXX) version of Daniel 7:13; the Aramaic text has “‘im (Mf9, with) the clouds,” which the Septuagint translates as ejpi; (‘on’) tw:n nefelw:n (epi tōn nephelōn),” “on the clouds.” Theodotion’s more literal translation of Daniel (later than the LXX), corrects “on” (ejpiv, epi) to “with” (metav, meta [followed by the genitive case]). Compare the following table:

With the phrase “on the clouds,” and the words leading into the quotation, “from now on you will see” (Mt. 26:64),

Matthew’s version clearly refers to Christ’s coming at the Parousia. Mark lacks “from now on,” and his preposition matches the Aramaic preposition Mf9 (‘im, with) of Daniel 7:13, but otherwise his version of the saying is the same as Matthew’s. Luke’s abbreviated version lacks any reference to the Daniel passage (Lk. 22:69), but Mark and Luke also anticipate the Lord’s coming at the Parousia. John’s version takes a different line, in discussing Jesus” teaching, which he asserts was “spoken openly” (Jn. 18:20) and which they should have know or could have learned by asking “those who heard what I said” (v. 21). Following the response from Jesus, in John “one of the police standing nearby struck Jesus on the face,” adding, “Is that how you treat the high priest?” (Jn. 20:22). At this point in Paul’s hearing before the council, he apologizes (Acts 23:3-6), but here Jesus says, “If I have spoken wrongly, testify to the wrong. But if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike me?” (Jn. 18:23). Seemingly silenced in John’s account, “then Annas sent him bound to Caiaphas the high priest” (v. 24). At this point in the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus is condemned to death for blasphemy (Mt. 26:65-66; Mk. 14:63-64; cf. Lk. 22:71), before being spat on and slapped (Mt. 26:67) or blindfolded and struck (Mk. 14:65; cf. Jn. 18:22). In the Synoptic Gospels Jesus is mostly silent throughout except when, according to Matthew, Caiaphas put him under oath (Mt. 26:63).

Dale C. Allison, Jr. calls attention to several ironies in Matthew’s version that also apply to Mark’s version of this interrogation by the Council:

The authorities pass judgment on the one who will someday pass judgment on them. They, by seeking false witnesses, and the high priest, by rending his robe, disobey Moses (cf. Lev. 21:10) whereas Jesus, by refusing an oath, lives by his messianic Torah. The authorities mock Jesus’ claim to be the Davidic Messiah, the fulfillment of OT hopes, while their very actions bring to pass in Jesus OT prophecies. They accuse Jesus of blasphemy and yet it is they who blaspheme the Son of God. Lastly, those who accuse Jesus of saying that he will destroy the temple of God and in three days build another themselves help fulfil that prophecy; for by sentencing him to death they are creating the circumstance that makes it possible for the temple of his body to be raised in three days. So the Sanhedrin has everything backwards and it ironically acts against its own true interests. This is crystal clear to the reader; it will not, however, be evident to Jesus’ persecutors until the parousia. (The Oxford Bible Commentary, 2001, p. 881 on Mt. 26:57-68)

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net