1 Kings 8:65-9:9

            The End of the Dedication Festival; the LORD’s Second Appearance to Solomon

65 So Solomon held the festival at that time, and all Israel with him--a great assembly, people from Lebo-hamath to the Wadi of Egypt--before the LORD our God, seven days. 66 On the eighth day he sent the people away; and they blessed the king, and went to their tents, joyful and in good spirits because of all the goodness that the LORD had shown to his servant David and to his people

9:1 When Solomon had finished building the house of the LORD and the king's house and all that Solomon desired to build, 2 the LORD appeared to Solomon a second time, as he had appeared to him at Gibeon. 3 The LORD said to him, "I have heard your prayer and your plea, which you made before me; I have consecrated this house that you have built, and put my name there forever; my eyes and my heart will be there for all time. 4 As for you, if you will walk before me, as David your father walked, with integrity of heart and uprightness, doing according to all that I have commanded you, and keeping my statutes and my ordinances, 5 then I will establish your royal throne over Israel forever, as I promised your father David, saying, 'There shall not fail you a successor on the throne of Israel.'

6 "If you turn aside from following me, you or your children, and do not keep my commandments and my statutes that I have set before you, but go and serve other gods and worship them, 7 then I will cut Israel off from the land that I have given them; and the house that I have consecrated for my name I will cast out of my sight; and Israel will become a proverb and a taunt among all peoples. 8 This house will become a heap of ruins; everyone passing by it will be astonished, and will hiss; and they will say, 'Why has the LORD done such a thing to this land and to this house?' 9 Then they will say, 'Because they have forsaken the LORD their God, who brought their ancestors out of the land of Egypt, and embraced other gods, worshiping them and serving them; therefore the LORD has brought this disaster upon them.' " (1 Kings 8:65-9:9, NRSV)

On September 4, 2007 (Tuesday 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 30, 2005 (Tuesday in the week of the Sunday closest to August 31, Year One); they are repeated again here with editing and supplement:

The concluding paragraph on the festival and Solomon’s dedicatory celebration of the temple describes a huge crowd: “So Solomon held the festival at that time, and all Israel with him--a great assembly, people from Lebo-hamath to the Wadi of Egypt–before the LORD our God, seven days” (1 Kgs. 8:65). According to Iain W. Provan, this describes “the northern and southern limits of Solomon’s rule (less extensive than those given in 4:21, 24)” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on 1 Kgs. 8:65). Lebo-hamath was about 50 miles north of Damascus (according to the scale of Map 7, NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007). According to Herbert B. Huffmon, the “Wadi of Egypt” was “the Wadi el-Arish, a valley in the sinai Peninsula of Egypt with a seasonal stream that flows into the Mediterranean (Num. 34:5; Josh. 15:4; 1 Kgs. 8:65; 2 Kings 24:7; 2 Chron. 7:87; Isa. 27:12)” (Harper’s Bible Dictionary, rev. ed., 1996, s.v. Egypt, Brook of). Provan says it was “either the Wadi Besor or the Wadi el-Arish, both south of Gaza (op. cit., on v. 65). But, as noted, Provan points to an earlier description of even more extensive territory: “Solomon was sovereign over all the kingdoms from the Euphrates to the land of the Philistines, even to the border of Egypt” (1 Kgs. 4:21, cf. v. 24). “On the eighth day,” says the narrator counting from the gathering assembly (8:1), “he [Solomon] sent the people away; and they blessed the king, and went to their tents, joyful and in good spirits because of all the goodness that the LORD had shown to his servant David and to his people Israel” (v. 66).

But a shadow is cast over the grandeur of this celebration by the following account of the LORD’s appearance to him (9:2-9). The LORD speaks to Solomon: “I have heard your prayer and your plea, which you made before me; I have consecrated this house that you have built, and put my name there forever; my eyes and my heart will be there for all time” (v. 3). But Solomon is reminded of the need for faithful obedience to the LORD. “As for you [Solomon], if you will walk before me, as David your father walked, with integrity of heart and uprightness, doing according to all that I have commanded you, and keeping my statutes and my ordinances, then I will establish your royal throne over Israel forever, as I promised your father David, saying, 'There shall not fail you a successor on the throne of Israel’ ” (vv. 4-5). In effect, this adds stipulations to the unconditional promises to David about his dynasty. The promise of 2 Samuel 7 is unconditional:

When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your ancestors, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come forth from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me. When he commits iniquity, I will punish him with a rod such as mortals use, with blows inflicted by human beings. But I will not take my steadfast love from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you. Your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me; your throne shall be established forever. (2 Sam. 7:12-16, NRSV)

Shimon Bar-Efrat says, “The promise that David’s dynasty shall last forever is not accompanied by any conditions (but see 1 Kings 9:4-7)” (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, on 2 Sam. 7:15-16). And in our present context, Robert R. Wilson says, “Addressing Solomon directly, God again makes the continuation of Davidic rule contingent on Solomon’s obedience to the commandments associated with the covenant (cf. [1 Kg.] 2:4)” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on 1 Kgs. 9:4-5). In the continuation, observes Wilson,

the you of the address switches from singular [j`leTe-Mx9, ’im-tēlēk, ‘if you (singular) walk,’ v. 4] to plural [NUbwuT4 bOw-Mx9, ’im-šôv t^ešuvûn, ‘If you (plural) turn aside,’ v. 6], and God warns Solomon’s descendants that they too must obey if the divine presence is to remain in the temple. If they do not obey the law, here summarized by the command to worship only the Lord (Deut. 6:4), then king and people together will be punished (cf. 6:11-13). This threat is later recalled in the Deuteronomistic explanation for the destruction of the Northern Kingdom (2 Kings 17:7-8) and ultimately becomes the explanation for the fall of Jerusalem and the exile (2 Kings 21:11-15). (ibid., on vv. 6-9)

“If you turn aside from following me,” says the LORD, “you or your children, and do not keep my commandments and my statutes that I have set before you, but go and serve other gods and worship them, then I will cut Israel off from the land that I have given them; and the house that I have consecrated for my name I will cast out of my sight; and Israel will become a proverb and a taunt among all peoples” (1 Kgs. 9:6-7). With the perspective of hindsight, the prediction is quite specific.

This house will become a heap of ruins; everyone passing by it will be astonished, and will hiss; and they will say, ‘Why has the LORD done such a thing to this land and to this house?’ Then they will say, ‘Because they have forsaken the LORD their God, who brought their ancestors out of the land of Egypt, and embraced other gods, worshiping them and serving them; therefore the LORD has brought this disaster upon them.’ (vv. 8-9; cf. Jer. 9:11)

As we read these consequences of disobedience, we feel that the author has read the end of the story, the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple as described at the end of 2 Kings. And the final editors, who brought together the story of the Kings of Israel and Judah from Solomon to the Babylonian captivity, did know the end of the story. They go to great lengths to put the blame on the idolatry promoted by almost all the kings of Judah, beginning with Solomon, and all of the kings of North Israel (2 Kgs., chap. 17). Of the fall of the northern kingdom to the Assyrians, they say, “This occurred because the people of Israel had sinned against the LORD their God. . . . They had worshiped other gods and walked in the customs that the kings of Israel had introduced” (2 Kgs. 17:7-8). Following verses describe this idolatry, which took place in spite of repeated rebukes by the prophets (vv. 13, 14). And they add that, “Judah also did not keep the commandments of the LORD their God, but walked in the customs that Israel had introduced” (v. 19).

James 2:14-26

            James, on Faith and Works

14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, "Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill," and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? 17 So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.

18 But someone will say, "You have faith and I have works." Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith. 19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe-and shudder. 20 Do you want to be shown, you senseless person, that faith apart from works is barren? 21 Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was brought to completion by the works. 23 Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness," and he was called the friend of God. 24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 Likewise, was not Rahab the prostitute also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by another road? 26 For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is also dead. (James 2:14-26, NRSV)

On November 17, 2008 (Monday in the week of the Sunday closest to November 16, Year Two), comments were repeated from September 4, 2007 (Tuesday in the week of the Sunday closest to August 31, Year One), when comments were repeated from November 20, 2006 (Monday in the week of the Sunday closest to November 16, Year Two), when they were combined with revision and supplement from November 15, 2004 (Monday in the week of the Sunday closest to November 16, Year Two), and from August 30, 2005 (Tuesday of the week of the Sunday closest to August 31, Year One). The combined comments are repeated here with extensive editing and supplement:

Martin Luther is known to have criticized the Epistle of James as “an epistle of straw,” mainly because he felt that James’ teaching about faith and works, “I by my works will show you my faith” (James 2:18), was in contradiction with Paul’s teaching about justification by faith apart from works. This apparent “contradiction” arises if we fail to consider the different contexts. Paul teaches about becoming Christian believers through faith in the atoning work of Christ (Rom. 3:21-26), and being “set right,” with “the righteousness of God” not by works of law but by faith (Rom. 3:27-31). James addresses Christian believers, calling upon them to live out their faith and commitment to Christ by doing good works. This agrees with Paul’s call for the Galatians to live by the Spirit and not to “gratify the desires of the flesh” (Gal. 5:16), and with many of Paul’s other instructions about how to live as Christian believers.

In yesterday’s reading James admonished his readers for partiality toward the wealthy as compared to their treatment of the lower classes (Jas. 2:1-7) and advised fulfilling “the royal law” (v. 8), the “law of liberty” (v. 12). In today’s reading he offers his comparison of faith and works. “What good is it, my brothers and sisters,” asks James, “if you say you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you?” (v. 14). Warren A. Quanbeck and Pheme Perkins say that faith without works “is counterfeit; such faith cannot save (Mt. 25:31-46; Gal. 5:6)” (NOAB, 2^nd ed., on Jas. 2:14). James presents an example of what he means. “If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill,’ and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that?” (vv. 15-16). Failure to meet this clear and present need is evidence that faith is not genuine. James concludes, “So faith by itself, it it has no works, is dead” (v. 17). According to James Hope Felder, “The author again appeals to a flagrant example (see 2:2-4)” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Jas. 2:14-17).

James deals with a possible objection. “But someone will say, ‘You have faith and I have works’ ” (v. 18a). Felder says, “The use of an imaginary interlocutor was a popular debating technique, called diatribe” (ibid., on v. 18). One might think the imaginary dialogue partner has it backward, attributing faith to James, who stresses works. The quotation marks, of course represent a decision of modern editors, who appear to agree, for the most part (NRSV, cf. RSV, NIV, TNIV, NKJV, ESV, ISV, New Living Translation). In any event, the response of James fits his point. “Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith” (v. 18b). Perhaps the imaginary dialogue partner is Jewish; James refers to the Shema. “You believe that God is one; you do well” (v. 19a; cf. Deut. 6:4). But whether for the Jewish believer who recites the Shema, or the one who “believe[s] in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ” (v. 1), mere affirmation of one’s faith is insufficient. “Even the demons believe,” says James, “and shudder” (v. 19b). James B. Addison says,

The verbal construction ‘to believe that God exists’ [pisteuvein o{ti (pisteuein hoti), n. 180] instead of ‘to trust God’ [pisteuvein (pisteuein) with the dative, n. 181] emphasizes intellectual acceptance, indicating that faith here is the fides qua creditur of orthodox Judaism.

This ability to assert belief in the existence and uniqueness of God was one–not the sole–indispoensible requirement of the Jewish religion; and it did not excuse, much less justify, repudiation of conduct conformable with that faith: on the contrary, the rabbis insisted that the Shema‘, the pious Jew’s daily confession of faith (Deut. 6:4), here quoted by James), was an express acceptance of the yoke of the kingdom (or Kingship) of God,, an act embracing, as they said: (1) that acceptance, and (2) commitment to the commandments (mitswôt [tOvc4m9]: Deut. 11:13-21) and (3) to the study of the Torah. (The Epistle of James, NICNT, 1976, p. 126, on Jas. 2:19)

James continues to address his imaginary dialogue partner, proving his point that faith is inadequate without works. “Do you want to be shown, you senseless person, that faith apart from works is barren?” (Jas. 2:20). He appeals to the example of Abraham. “Was not (oujk, ouk) our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?” (v. 21). The word oujk (ouk) in the question implies an affirmative answer. James explains: “You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was brought to completion by the works” (v. 22). Although the example come from Genesis, chapter 22, the account of the occasion when Abraham’s obedience was tested by God’s command to sacrifice Isaac, James cites the earlier verse used by Paul to support his concept of justification by faith apart from works of law (Rom 3:18; cf. 4:3, citing Gen. 15:6; cf. Gal. 3:6). “Thus,” says James, “the scripture was fulfilled that says, ‘Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness” (Jas. 2:23). From this, it appears that James draws a conclusion in contradiction–or at least conflict–with Paul’s view. “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone” (v. 24). James adds another example. “Likewise, was not Rahab the prostitute also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by another road?” (v. 25). Felder says, “Rahab, the prostitute of Jericho (Josh. 2:1-21), is also a heroine of the faith in Heb. 11:31” (op. cit., on v. 25). James offers a final point. “For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is also dead” (v. 26). “In his usual circling fashion,” says Addison, “James by analogy reiterates and clinches his basic thesis, ‘faith without works is dead’ (v. 17)” (ibid., p. 134, on v. 26). Addison notes an unusual comparison:

Faith is compared to the body, works to the spirit–an apparent inversion whach has caused some to question the soundness of the text. . . . In this case the comparison may well be his opponent’s, and its elements should be carefully considered in context. Thus faith is used in the non-Pauline, especially Jewish sense of a body or corpus of opinion; ‘body’ represents the Hebraic monistic (rather than Greek ‘body-tomb’ dualistic) view of the total, essential person (see 1 Cor. 15); that is, ‘the body is the soul in its outward form’; and the primary effect of ‘spirit’ or ‘breath,’ like OT ruach [H1Ur], is life, and this makes the body a living soul (nephesh [wp,n@]) from which it departs at death. The tertium comparationis [what the things being compared have in common], therefore, is the essential deadness of both ‘body’ and ‘faith’ apart from the vital principle of ‘works,’ which is equivalent to the spirit.’ (ibid., pp. 134-135, on v. 26)

Paul and James are not in contradiction on this matter, but their views are in some sense complementary. Paul bases his view, in part, on Habakkuk 2:4. “Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law; for ‘The one who is righteous will live by faith (pivstiV, pistis)’ ” (Gal. 3:11, citing Hab. 2:4). “For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith (pivstiV, pistis) for faith (pivstiV, pistis); as it is written, ‘The one who is righteous will live by faith (pivstiV, pistis)’ ” (Rom. 1:17, citing Hab. 2:4). Habakkuk says:

Look at the proud!

Their spirit is not right in them,

but the righteous (qyDca, tsaddîq) live by their faith (hn!Umx$, ’ ^emûnāh) (text note c ‘Or faithfulness’). (Hab. 2:4 NRSV)

The Septuagint translation is as follows (my translation):

If he shrinks back (uJposteivlhtai, hyposteilētai), my soul is not pleased with him, but the righteous (divkaioV, dikaios) will live by my faith (or ‘faithfulness,’ pivstiV, pistis). (based on Hab. 2:4 LXX)

The Greek word pivstiV (pistis) often means “faith,” but sometimes means “faithfulness.” It is defined as “that which evokes trust and faith–(a) the state of being someone in whom confidence can be placed, faithfulness, reliability, fidelity, commitment” (Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich [BDAG], A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3^rd ed., 2000, s.v. pivstiV, pistis, meaning (1) (a) ); but also as “state of believing on the basis of the reliability of the one trusted, trust, confidence, faith” (ibid., meaning no (2) ). In the Hebrew text, the word hn!Umx$ (’ ^emûnāh) corresponds better with “faithfulness” (cf. William L. Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 1971, 10^th corrected impression 1988, s.v. hn!Umx$, ’ ^emûnāh).

Stephen Neill and Tom Wright discuss faith and works in a way that relates both to this reading from James and the comments on Habakkuk 2:4 (above).

Faith cannot be built on one narrow section of the Christian revelation without help from the other. . . . It is clear that the word [faith] is used with interestingly different connotations by Paul, by James, and by the writer to the Hebrews. The three in a broad general sense look respectively to the past, to the present, and to the future. In Paul faith means something like total surrender to God on the basis of the promises he has given to man in Jesus Christ. In James, faith means loving obedience to the commands of God. In Hebrews, faith means going forth boldly into the unknown, in the certainty that God is at the end of the journey as well as at its beginning. Clearly, each of these concepts is valid, Christian, and apostolic. Lacking any one of them our faith must be partial and one-sided” (pp. 203-204). (The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861-1986, 1988, pp. 203-204)

Mark 14:66-72

            Peter’s Three Denials of Jesus

66 While Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the servant-girls of the high priest came by. 67 When she saw Peter warming himself, she stared at him and said, "You also were with Jesus, the man from Nazareth." 68 But he denied it, saying, "I do not know or understand what you are talking about." And he went out into the forecourt. Then the cock crowed. 69 And the servant-girl, on seeing him, began again to say to the bystanders, "This man is one of them." 70 But again he denied it. Then after a little while the bystanders again said to Peter, "Certainly you are one of them; for you are a Galilean." 71 But he began to curse, and he swore an oath, "I do not know this man you are talking about." 72 At that moment the cock crowed for the second time. Then Peter remembered that Jesus had said to him, "Before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times." And he broke down and wept. (Mark 14:66-72, NRSV)

On September 4, 2007 (Tuesday in the week of the Fourteenth Sunday after Pentecost, references for the week of the Sunday closest to August 31, Year One), comments were based on those of August 30, 2005(Tuesday in the week of the Sunday closest to August 31, Year One), and comments on Matthew 26:69-75 from July 27, 2006 (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to July 20, Year Two). For recent comments on the parallel passages in Matthew, see the Archives for July 23 and 24, 2008 (Wednesday and Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to July 20, Year Two); for those on the parallel passage in Luke, see the Archive for December 16, 2008 (Tuesday in the week of the Third Sunday of Advent, Year One); and for those on the parallel passage in John, see the Archive for February 4, 2008 (Monday in the week of the Last Sunday after the Epiphany, Year Two). Parallel passages from the four Gospels are presented in the separate file, Peter’s Denials.

Mark’s brief account of Peter’s three denials of Jesus becomes surprisingly complex when compared with the parallel accounts in the other Gospels. “Ironically,” says Raymond E. Brown, “this episode of the [Passion Narrative] exhibits contrasting aspects. On the one hand it is the episode on which the four Gospels agree most; on the other there are infuriatingly different minor details in the narrative of the setting and of the three denials” (The Death of the Messiah, I, 1994, p. 589). Brown continues with some thirty pages or so of analysis of these “different minor details” and conclusions that suggest a historical basis for a story told each in his own way by the different evangelists (cf. p. 623). He rejects critical denial of certain aspects of the story. “Accordingly, priority is sometimes given to the prediction as having produced the story of the denials, (thus [three scholars] . . .). . . . Why would such a prediction be preserved if it was not fulfilled?” (p. 620).

In yesterday’s comments on Jesus before Caiaphas, and in the separate file, Jesus’ Trial before Caiaphas, we see that part of John’s account of Peter’s betrayal (Jn. 18:15-18) is inserted within the account of the trial. Today we see that the conclusion of the trial before Annas (Jn. 18:19-24; John’s equivalent of the trial before Caiaphas) is inserted within the account of Peter’s Denial, as in the separate file, Peter’s Denials, mentioned above. But in the Synoptic Gospels, this trial and the denials are presented separately. Raymond E. Brown says of the accounts of Peter’s denials, “ironically this episode of the PN [Passion Narrative] exhibits contrasting aspects. Brown notes a difference in sequence. “In Luke and John, after Jesus has been arrested on the Mount of Olives across the Kidron and has been brought to the high priest or his house, we are immediately told how Peter, who was following, began to be confronted and thus was led to deny Jesus,” but “in Mark/Matt, however, there is a separation, for the Sanhedrin trial comes between the description of Peter’s whereabouts and the account of the denials” (ibid., p. 589). Brown says that the arrangements in Matthew and Mark “underline the simultaneity of Peter’s denials and the Sanhedrin trial which has been described in the verses that separate the preparation from the denials” (ibid., p. 592). Later in his analysis, Brown returns to this simultaneity:

For Mark these denials took place at the moment Jesus stood before the Sanhedrin. There a Jesus who in his ministry had been very reticent about his identity says, ‘I am’ (Mark), in response to the high priest’s question ‘Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed?’ In the denials, a Peter who previously had confessed Jesus as the Messiah (Mark 8:29) now denies under oath that he knows him. (In Matt. the contrasted wording is even more precise: Jesus gives a qualified affirmation to the high priest’s question, ‘Are [you] the Messiah, the Son of God?’ whereas Peter had once confessed Jesus as ‘the Messiah, the Son of the living God’ [16:16]). (Brown, p. 622)

Dale C. Allison, Jr., comments in a similar vein:

Our story also balances the trial, where Jesus, like Peter, who is not far away, faces three sets of accusers (false witnesses, v. 60, the two true witnesses, vv. 61-2, Caiaphas, vv. 63-6). There Jesus is asked whether he is the Messiah, the Son of God. He, although heretofore reticent about his identity, fearlessly confesses that he is. But Peter, who earlier confessed Jesus to be the Christ, the Son of God, no longer acknowledges his Lord: when confronted he becomes a coward. Jesus illustrates the good confession of 10:32, Peter the damning denial of 10:33. (The Oxford Bible Commentary, 2001, p. 882 on Mt. 26:69-75)

Another difference in the accounts of the betrayal is about the questioners/accusers of Peter. In Mark the first two challenges to Peter come from “one of the servant-girls” (Mk. 14:66), who challenges him again, “the servant-girl” (v. 69), after the first crowing of the cock (v. 68). The third challenge, the one that led to Peter’s oath of denial (v. 71), is by “the bystanders” (v. 70). Matthew’s presentation is similar except that the second challenge comes from “another servant-girl” (Mt. 26:71, cf. vv. 69, 73). Luke’s three challengers are “a servant-girl” (Lk. 22:56), “someone else” (v. 58) and “still another” (v. 59). In John, Peter is first challenged by “the woman who guarded the gate” (Jn. 18:16), for he apparently stayed back after following Jesus with “another disciple,” the one who “was known to the high priest [and] went with Jesus into the courtyard of the high priest” (v. 15). John’s account combines the second and third challenges into a single scene as they were warming themselves at the charcoal fire (vv. 25, 26, cf. v. 18).

Allison notes that “Earlier in this chapter [Mt. 26] Judas defects. Later the other disciples flee. Now Peter, retreating from his promise (v. 35), denies his Lord. This is the climax of the disciples’ failure. The first to be called is not the last to fall away” (Brown, p. 882 on Mt. 26:69-75). Allison also points out some irony here.

In its present context this passage supplies irony by balancing v. 74, where Jesus’ prophetic powers are mocked. Although Jesus makes no appearance in our story, it shows that, so far from being a false prophet, he has predicted the events of the evening in detail. ‘Before the cock crows, you will deny me three times’ ([Mt. 26:]34) comes to literal fulfilment precisely while Jesus is being reviled with ‘Prophesy to us, you Messiah!’ (v. 68). (ibid.)

Most of us can probably sympathize with Peter, but regret his weakness in this situation. It’s often noted that the Gospels show a very human side of Peter, but we can also rejoice in his strong leadership of the church in the Book of Acts. Notable too is the vast difference between actions of Judas, who deliberately planned the betrayal, and of Peter, who was taken by surprise at the critical moment; and also the difference between Judas’ remorse and suicide and Peter’s repentance and restoration. Many Christians have been encouraged by the fact that Peter was able to repent and recover from this failure and to become a prominent leader within the early church.

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net