2 Kings 11:1-20a

Athaliah, Jehoiada and Joash

11:1 Now when Athaliah, Ahaziah's mother, saw that her son was dead, she set about to destroy all the royal family. 2 But Jehosheba, King Joram's daughter, Ahaziah's sister, took Joash son of Ahaziah, and stole him away from among the king's children who were about to be killed; she put him and his nurse in a bedroom. Thus she hid him from Athaliah, so that he was not killed; 3 he remained with her six years, hidden in the house of the LORD, while Athaliah reigned over the land.

4 But in the seventh year Jehoiada summoned the captains of the Carites and of the guards and had them come to him in the house of the LORD. He made a covenant with them and put them under oath in the house of the LORD; then he showed them the king's son. 5 He commanded them, "This is what you are to do: one-third of you, those who go off duty on the sabbath and guard the king's house 6 (another third being at the gate Sur and a third at the gate behind the guards), shall guard the palace; 7 and your two divisions that come on duty in force on the sabbath and guard the house of the LORD 8 shall surround the king, each with weapons in hand; and whoever approaches the ranks is to be killed. Be with the king in his comings and goings."

9 The captains did according to all that the priest Jehoiada commanded; each brought his men who were to go off duty on the sabbath, with those who were to come on duty on the sabbath, and came to the priest Jehoiada. 10 The priest delivered to the captains the spears and shields that had been King David's, which were in the house of the LORD; 11 the guards stood, every man with his weapons in his hand, from the south side of the house to the north side of the house, around the altar and the house, to guard the king on every side. 12 Then he brought out the king's son, put the crown on him, and gave him the covenant; they proclaimed him king, and anointed him; they clapped their hands and shouted, "Long live the king!"

13 When Athaliah heard the noise of the guard and of the people, she went into the house of the LORD to the people; 14 when she looked, there was the king standing by the pillar, according to custom, with the captains and the trumpeters beside the king, and all the people of the land rejoicing and blowing trumpets. Athaliah tore her clothes and cried, "Treason! Treason!" 15 Then the priest Jehoiada commanded the captains who were set over the army, "Bring her out between the ranks, and kill with the sword anyone who follows her." For the priest said, "Let her not be killed in the house of the LORD." 16 So they laid hands on her; she went through the horses' entrance to the king's house, and there she was put to death.

17 Jehoiada made a covenant between the LORD and the king and people, that they should be the LORD's people; also between the king and the people. 18 Then all the people of the land went to the house of Baal, and tore it down; his altars and his images they broke in pieces, and they killed Mattan, the priest of Baal, before the altars. The priest posted guards over the house of the LORD. 19 He took the captains, the Carites, the guards, and all the people of the land; then they brought the king down from the house of the LORD, marching through the gate of the guards to the king's house. He took his seat on the throne of the kings. 20 So all the people of the land rejoiced; and the city was quiet after Athaliah had been killed with the sword at the king's house. (2 Kings 11:1-20, NRSV)

The following comments are repeated here with editing and supplement from September 29, 2007 (Saturday in the week of the Seventeenth Sunday after Pentecost, references for the week of the Sunday closest to September 21, Year One):

For today’s reading the Daily Office Lectionary passes over 2 Kings, chapter 10, which we may call Jehu’s “mopping up” operation in wiping out the remaining descendants of Ahab, and the remaining elements of Baal-worship. Robert R. Wilson summarizes: “Jehu’s slaughter of Ahab’s descendants follows the familiar practice of usurpers who destroy all rivals (see 2 Sam. 3-4; 1 Kings 15:28-30; 16:8-14)” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on 2 Kings 10:1-7). “After destroying all of the house of Ahab,” adds Wilson, “Jehu removes all traces of the worship of Baal, which Ahab and Jezebel had introduced into Israel (1 Kings 16:31-33)” (ibid., on 2 Kgs. 10:17-31). In spite of this slaughter, approved by the narrators, overall, Jehu is given a negative rating. “Thus,” they say, referring to his removal of Baal Worship, “Jehu wiped out Baal from Israel. But Jehu did not turn aside from the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat, which he caused Israel to commit–the golden calves that were in Bethel and in Dan” (vv. 28-29). According to Ziony Zevit, “Jehu’s commitments did not go so far as to eliminate the institutions established by Jeroboam. No matter what the historical Jehu may have thought, the author considered this sinful” (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, on 2 Kgs. 10:29). The narrator continues: “The LORD said to Jehu,” presumably through one of the prophets, “because you have done well in carrying out what I consider right, and in accordance with all that was in my heart have dealt with the house of Ahab, your sons of the fourth generation shall sit on the throne of Israel” (v. 30). On the other hand, we are told, “Jehu was not careful to follow the law of the LORD the God of Israel with all his heart; he did not turn from the sins of Jeroboam, which he caused Israel to commit” (v. 31).

Before the typical summary of Jehu’s reign (vv. 34-36), the narrators inform us that, “In those days the LORD began to trim off parts of Israel. Hazael defeated them throughout the territory of Israel: from the Jordan eastward all the land of Gilead, the Gadites, the Reubenites, and the Manassites, from Aroer, which is by the Wadi Arnon, that is, Gilead and Bashan” (vv. 32-33). Wilson says, “The closing summary of Jehu’s reign has been expanded to include additional references to Hazael’s successful attacks on Israelite territory. This activity was probably thought to be a fulfillment of Elisha’s prophetic vision (8:12)” (op. cit., on vv. 32-36). Then we are presented with the typical statement about “the rest of the acts of Jehu,” which may be found “in the Book of the Annals of the Kings of Israel” (v. 34), and the standard summary, “So Jehu slept with his ancestors, and they buried him in Samaria. His son Jehoahaz succeeded him. The time that Jehu reigned over Israel in Samaria was twenty-eight years” (vv. 35-36).

In the following century, the prophet Hosea will pass rather harsh judgment on Jehu’s slaughters. To Hosea, the LORD says to name his first child “Jezreel, for in a little while I will punish the house of Jehu for the blood of Jezreel, and I will put an end to the kingdom of the house of Israel. On that day I will break the bow of Israel in the valley of Jezreel” (Hos. 1:4-5). But the LORD’s promise to Jehu that his “sons of the fourth generation” would reign over Israel (2 Kgs. 10:30) was fulfilled by the reigns of Jehoahaz (13:1-9, 815-802 B.C.), Jehoash/Joash (vv. 10-13, 802-786 B.C.), Jeroboam II (14:23-29, 786-746 B.C.), and Zechariah (15:8-12, 746-745 B.C.; these dates are from the table of the Chronology of the Kings of the Divided Monarchy, HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, p. 500). The reign of Jeroboam II, which provides the setting for such eighth century prophets as Amos and Hosea, has been called “Israel’s Second Golden Age,” of which, little note is taken by the narrators of II Kings. They do report that Jeroboam II “restored the border of Israel from Lebo-hamath as far as the Sea of the Arabah,” which they credit as fulfillment of “the word of the LORD, the God of Israel, which he spoke by his servant Jonah son of Amittai, the prophet who was from Gath-hepher” (2 Kgs. 14:25). This was a response from the LORD to “the distress of Israel [which] was very bitter,” for “there was no one left, bond or free, and no one to help Israel” (v. 26), in fulfillment of his promise: “But the LORD had not said that he would blot out the name of Israel from under heaven, so he saved them by the hand of Jeroboam son of Joash” (v. 27). The narrators of II Kings also refer to credit given to Jeroboam II in “the Book of the Annals of the Kings of Israel,” about “how he fought, and how he recovered for Israel Damascus and Hamath, which had belonged to Judah” (v. 28).

When we come to today’s reading, we discover that the whole family of Ahab and Jezebel has not been destroyed, for their daughter Athaliah, who was married to Jehoram, king of Judah (849-843 B.C., cf. Harper’s Bible Dictionary, rev. ed., 1996, s.v. Athaliah), is alive and seeking revenge. “Now when Athaliah, Ahaziah's mother, saw that her son was dead, she set about to destroy all the royal family” (2 Kgs. 11:1). This Ahaziah,

the son of Jehoram and Athaliah, king of Judah (c. 842 B.C.) . . . was allied with Jehoram of Israel in an unsuccessful attempt to recover Ramoth-gilead from Hazael of Damascus (2 Kings 8:28). When Jehoram was wounded in battle, Ahaziah visited him in Jezreel. Because of this kinship and friendship, Jehu, the king of Israel, assassinated him along with Jehoram (2 Kings 9:27-28). (Duane L. Christensen, in Harper’s Bible Dictionary, rev. ed., 1996, s.v. Ahaziah 2)

But Athaliah’s plan to destroy the whole family of Ahaziah is frustrated by “Jehosheba, King Joram’s daughter, Ahaziah’s sister [who] took Joash son of Ahaziah, and stole him away from among the king's children who were about to be killed” (2 Kgs. 11:2a). “She put him and his nurse,” we are told, “in a bedroom. Thus she hid him from Athaliah, so that he was not killed [and] he remained with her six years, hidden in the house of the LORD, while Athaliah reigned over Judah” (vv. 2b, 3). According to Zevit,

Athaliah, with influence and power as queen mother, exploited the death of her son to have all males of royal stock killed, then assumed power. The author did not provide her with the usual opening or closing summary since he does not view her as a legitimate ruler. Jehosheba, who saved Joash’s life, was spared since she could not claim the throne. According to the parallel account in 2 Chron. 22:12 she was the wife of Jehoiada the priest. (op. cit., on 2 Kgs. 11:1-3).

The situation, with Athaliah on the throne and the child Joash in hiding continues for six years. But “in the seventh year” (837 B.C., according to the table of Chronology cited above), Jehoiada, “the priest” (vv. 9, 15) takes action to correct the abnormal situation (v. 4a). He summons “the captains of the Carites and of the guards and [has] them come to him in the house of the LORD” (v. 4b). He makes “a covenant with them and [puts] them under oath in the house of the LORD; then he [shows] them the king’s son [Joash]” (v. 4c). According to Wilson, the “Carites [are] mercenaries charged with guarding the palace and the temple. Their origins are unknown. On the basis of the Hebrew text of 2 Sam. 20:23, some scholars have equated them with the Cherethites, a foreign mercenary unit in David’s private army” (op. cit., on v. 4). Jehoiada’s directions to this group are specific, providing the necessary protection for the child who will be king:

This is what you are to do: one-third of you, those who go off duty on the sabbath and guard the king's house (another third being at the gate Sur and a third at the gate behind the guards), shall guard the palace; and your two divisions that come on duty in force on the sabbath and guard the house of the LORD shall surround the king, each with weapons in hand; and whoever approaches the ranks is to be killed. Be with the king in his comings and goings. (vv. 5-8)

Of the “Gate Sur,” Wilson says its “location [is] unknown. V. 19 implies that the gate behind the guards connected the temple with the palace” (ibid., on v. 6). According to Iain W. Provan, “The details of the arrangements are obscure, largely due to our ignorance as to how the troops involved were organized and subdivided. Clearly sufficient security is provided for the ceremony to take place within the Temple precincts” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on 2 Kgs. 11:5-8). Wilson says, “Apparently the troops who guarded the king’s house were divided into three groups, each serving a week ending on the sabbath. Jehoiada took the group about to go off duty (one-third of the total guard), divided it into three subgroups, and assigned one subgroup to each of three stations. The remaining two-thirds of the total guard were brought to the house of the Lord to guard the king (Joash)” (op. cit., on vv. 5-8). The captains follow these instructions. “The captains did according to all that the priest Jehoiada commanded; each brought his men who were to go off duty on the sabbath, with those who were to come on duty on the sabbath, and came to the priest Jehoiada” (v. 9). According to the narrators, “The priest delivered to the captains the spears and shields that had been King David's, which were in the house of the LORD” (v. 10). “The weapons,” says Wilson, “may have been those that David captured from the Arameans (see 2 Sam. 8:7)” (ibid., on v. 10). According to Provan, “The soldiers probably did not need to be armed by the priest; the weapons were symbols of the Davidic dynasty” (op. cit., on v. 10).

With the guards in place “every man with his weapons in his hand, from the south side of the house to the north side of the house, around the altar and the house,” and thus prepared “to guard the king on every side” (v. 11), Jehoiada “brought out the king's son, put the crown on him, and gave him the covenant (tUdfehA6, hā‘ēdûth)” (v. 12a). There is some uncertainty about the meaning of (tUdfe (‘ēdûth) in this verse, but it is clearly an emblem of royalty, for when it is given to Joash, “they proclaimed him king, and anointed him; they clapped their hands and shouted, ‘Long live the king!’ ” (v. 12b). For tUdfe (‘ēdûth), “covenant,” NRSV), the New Jewish Publication Society translation has “insignia” (v. 12, NJPS 1985, 1999), with a text note, “Meaning of Heb. uncertain.” Zevit says, “Insignia (Heb. “‘edut’) may refer to an identifying object, such as the armband of Saul (2 Sam. 1:10), that marked its wearer as king; these are seen on royal reliefs of Mesopotamian kings. Most medieval and modern commentators interpret the word as ‘testimony / covenant / teaching’ and understand that a document spelling out royal rights and obligations is intended by the word” (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, p. 748, on 2 Kgs. 11:12). According to Choon Leow Seow, this Hebrew word “is used elsewhere in the Bible for covenant documents (e.g., Exod. 25:16; 31:18; 32:15; 34:29; 40:20) and occurs in conjunction with David’s kingship in Ps. 132:12. Hence the NIV interprets it as ‘a copy of the covenant’ (NRSV, ‘the covenant’; REB, ‘the Testimony’), although the word has been taken by some interpreters to refer to some sort of royal insignia” (The New Interpreter’s Bible, III, 1999, p. 230, on 2 Kgs. 11:12).

Next, we are told, “When Athaliah heard the noise of the guard and of the people, she went into the house of the LORD to the people” (v. 13). She explodes with rage at what she saw, for “when she looked, there was the king standing by the pillar, according to custom, with the captains and the trumpeters beside the king, and all the people of the land rejoicing and blowing trumpets. Athaliah tore her clothes and cried, ‘Treason! Treason! (rw,q! rw,q,, qešer qāšer)’ ” (v. 14); compare Joram’s cry, “Treason (hmAr4m9, mirmāh) Ahaziah!). Athaliah’s outcry, rw,q, (qešer), means “alliance, conspiracy”; Joram’s hmAr4m9 (mirmāh), means “fraud, deceit,” or here, “betrayal” (William L. Holladay, Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon, s.v. rw@q@[ qešer@, and hmAr4m9, mirmāh). The “pillar,” says Wilson was “probably one of the pair at the entrance to the temple” (op. cit., on v. 14). “People of the land,” he adds, were “probably wealthy landowners. They seem to have been an important social group in Judah and enjoyed a great deal of political influence (21:23-24; 23:30; Jer. 1:18; 34:19-20; 37:2)” (ibid.). Athaliah certainly now–much too late from her perspective–sees the situation as “treason,” Jehoiada orders the captains to “Bring her out between the ranks, and kill with the sword anyone who follows her” (v. 15a), explaining, “Let her not be killed in the house of the LORD” (v. 15b). She is taken to the barn, so to speak–for an ignominious end of her life. “So,” says the narrator, “the laid hands on her; she went through the horses’ entrance to the king’s house, and there she was put to death” (v. 16).

The inauguration ceremony for the new king continues. “Jehoiada made a covenant (tyr9B4, b^erîth, the usual word translated ‘covenant’) between the LORD and the king and people, that they should be the LORD's people; also between the king and the people” (v. 17), and religious reforms begin immediately. Compare the reforms of Josiah later (chaps. 22-23), who became king at the age of eight (22:1). “Then all the people of the land went to the house of Baal, and tore it down; his altars and his images they broke in pieces, and they killed Mattan, the priest of Baal, before the altars” (11:18a). “The people of the land,” says Provan, “have been variously interpreted as simple provincial people (the proletariat), property owners, those faithful to the Yahwistic tradition, and the voting citizenry of Judah. It is difficult in the absence of further data to know which , if any, of these suggestions is correct” (on v. 14, cf. v. 18). As noted above, Wilson identified them as wealthy landowners of Judah. The priest (Jehoiada) acts to complete the process. He posts guards “over the house of the LORD” (v. 18b), and with the various guards and “all the people of the land,” he brings the king “down from the house of the LORD, marching through the gate of the guards to the king’s house” (v. 19a), where Joash takes “his seat on the throne of the kings” (v. 19b).

For a while, it seems, the troubled times are over. With Joash as king, “all the people of the land rejoiced; and the city was quiet after Athaliah had been killed with the sword at the king's house” (v. 20). And we are reminded again that Jehoash (Joash) “was seven years old when he began to reign” (v. 21), a reign that lasted for forty years (12:1). As we look ahead in the daily readings, we note that they pass over five chapters to report the end of the Northern Kingdom of Israel (chap. 17, where the fate of the northern kingdom is clearly blamed on its idolatry, which has been the focus of the narrative from the beginning with Jeroboam’s revolt).

1 Corinthians 7:10-24

Further Instructions about Marriage

10 To the married I give this command--not I but the Lord--that the wife should not separate from her husband 11 (but if she does separate, let her remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife.

12 To the rest I say--I and not the Lord--that if any believer has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. 13 And if any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. 15 But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound. It is to peace that God has called you. 16 Wife, for all you know, you might save your husband. Husband, for all you know, you might save your wife.

17 However that may be, let each of you lead the life that the Lord has assigned, to which God called you. This is my rule in all the churches. 18 Was anyone at the time of his call already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. Was anyone at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision. 19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing; but obeying the commandments of God is everything. 20 Let each of you remain in the condition in which you were called.

21 Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. Even if you can gain your freedom, make use of your present condition now more than ever. 22 For whoever was called in the Lord as a slave is a freed person belonging to the Lord, just as whoever was free when called is a slave of Christ. 23 You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of human masters. 24 In whatever condition you were called, brothers and sisters, there remain with God. (1 Corinthians 7:10-24, NRSV)

On February 23, 2008 (Saturday in the week of the Second Sunday of Lent, Year Two), comments were repeated from September 29, 2007 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to September 21, Year One), when comments were repeated from March 18, 2006 (Saturday in the week of the Second Sunday of Lent, Year Two); they are repeated again here with editing and supplement:

Paul’s advice about marriage and related matters continues. “To the married I give this command–not I but the Lord–that the wife should not separate from her husband” (1 Cor. 7:10). However, he says parenthetically, “if she does separate, let her remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband” (v. 11a). For the parentheses (v. 11a RSV, NRSV) compare the dashes in Kurt Aland, and others, editors, The Greek New Testament (3^rd ed., 1975), in verse 11. In verse 10, where the NRSV has dashes, The Greek New Testament has commas. The attributing of this advice to a command of the Lord (Jesus) (cf. Mk. 10:6-9, 11-13; Lk. 16:18) is one of a few such instances in Paul’s letters. Richard A. Horsley cites 9:14 and 11:23-25 as similar examples (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007,, on 1 Cor. 7:10). One can compare Paul’s teaching with that of Jesus in other instances as well, for example, his emphasis on love as fulfilling the law (Rom. 13:8-10; cf. Mt. 22:39-40, parallel passages and cross-references).

Paul next advises not to divorce an unbelieving wife or husband. “To the rest I say–I and not the Lord–that if any believer has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. And if any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him” (vv. 12-13). We note that this advice is presented by Paul as his own, not a command of the Lord. He states a reason. “For the unbelieving husband is made holy through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy” (v. 14). In other words, the unbelieving spouse, and the children as well, are “made holy” through the believing spouse, another indication that Paul’s advice here is not motivated by “ascetic” principles (cf. comments cited yesterday from Ben Witherington III). But Paul allows for an exception. “But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound. It is to peace that God has called you” (v. 15). However, there is a good reason to remain with one’s spouse. “Wife, for all you know, you might save your husband. Husband, for all you know, you might save your wife” (v. 16; cf. 1 Pet. 3:1-3).

Witherington asks, “Is Paul’s advice to ‘remain as you are’ and then live ‘as if not’ a baptizing of a fragile status quo in the wake of a larger ascetic trend?” He explains:

One key to understanding Paul’s somewhat puzzling advice is to realize that he is reacting against men and women who are trying to ‘depart,’ that is, abandon their pagan families. To them, Paul wishes to make clear that they are not defiled by such a relationship. Indeed, they have an opportunity to be a sanctifying influence in the situation, and this is one reason for his advice to ‘remain. (Ben Witherington III, Conflict & Community in Corinth, 1994, p. 178, on 1 Cor. 7:1-40)

“However that may be,” says Paul, “let each of you lead the life that the Lord has assigned, to which God called you. This is my rule in all the churches” (v. 17). If circumcised when called, one should “not seek to remove the marks of circumcision”; and on the other hand, if uncircumcised when called, one should “not seek circumcision” (v. 18). Paul discounts the value of circumcision or of not being circumcised. “Circumcision is nothing,” he says, “and uncircumcision is nothing; but obeying the commandments of God is everything” (v. 19). Rather, “each one [should] remain in the condition in which you were called” (v. 20).

As for a condition of slavery, Paul asks, “Were you a slave when called? Do not be concerned about it. Even if you can gain your freedom, make use of your present condition now more than ever” (v. 21 NRSV). The final phrase here is elliptical, ma:llon crh:sai (mallon chrēsai, “use it rather” AV/KJV), and may refer to the condition of slavery (hJ douleiva, hē douleia) or the condition of freedom (hJ ejleuqeriva, hē eleutheria). Construing the verb “make use of” (cravomai, chraomai) with “slavery” (th:/ douleiva/, tē(i) douleia(i), dative case of hJ douleiva, hē douleia) is supported by “the Peshitta, Chrysostom, Theodoret, and many modern interpreters and translators [including] Goodspeed, NRSV . . .” whereas others construe it with “freedom” (th:/ ejleuqeriva/ tē(i) eleutheria(i), dative case of hJ ejleuqeriva, hē eleutheria), which is supported by “Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, FGodet, Lightfoot, Zahn, Moffatt, RSV, NRSV mg., REB” (Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich [BDAG], A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3^rd ed., 2000, s.v. cravomai, chraomai, meaning no. (1) (a) ). Horsley sides with the latter.

The phrase your present condition now more than ever is not in the Greek, where the last, elliptical clause, make use of [it] or ‘rather use it,’ requires completion from the context, i.e., from the nearest noun, freedom. Thus the alternative translation in NRSV footnote a is to be preferred, with the sense being, ‘If you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity!’ Since the slave-free relation is not analogous to the male-female or the circumcised-uncircumcised relations, Paul makes an exception to his rule when it comes to slaves–following the pattern of the four preceding and one following sections of the argument, where he gives a general rule and then makes an exception. Slaves should seize any opportunity to become free. (op. cit., on v. 21).

But more important for Paul is the principle that one “called in the Lord as a slave is a freed person belonging to the Lord, just as whoever was free when called is a slave of Christ” (v. 22). “For Paul,” says Witherington,

the one thing of eternal significance that humans can do in this world is serve the Lord, proclaiming the good news of eternal salvation available through the crucified Jesus . . . [not all as] full time missionaries like himself, but . . . all must bear witness in whatever social situation they find themselves . . . And there is another reason. . . . What is really important is not one’s social position but one’s soteriological condition [condition with respect to salvation]. Even a slave can be the Lord’s freedman. (op. cit., p. 179).

“You were bought with a price,” says Paul; “do not become slaves of human masters” (v. 23). He says, rather, “In whatever condition you were called, brothers and sisters, there remain with God” (v. 24, repeating the advice of v. 20). Paul thus uses his general egalitarian principle (cf. Gal. 3:28) to illustrate his advice on marriage relationships.

Matthew 6:19-24

Treasures in Heaven

19 "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal; 20 but store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

22 "The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light; 23 but if your eye is unhealthy, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!

24 "No one can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth. Matthew 6:19-24, NRSV)

On April 23, 2008 (Wednesday in the week of the Fifth Sunday of Easter, Year Two), comments were repeated with editing from September 29, 2007 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to September 21, Year One), when comments included those of May 17, 2006 (Wednesday in the week of the Fifth Sunday of Easter, Year Two) with some editing and supplement. The comments are repeated here:

This reading from Matthew consists of three sets of sayings from the middle part of the Sermon on the Mount for which the parallel passages in Luke are found in separate contexts. These sayings would be assigned to the so-called “Q” source, for which Luke’s sequence of material is considered more original. Through his topical arrangement of material, Matthew has filled out the Sermon on the Mount (chaps. 5-7), which, in overall structure, bears remarkable resemblance to the much shorter “Sermon on the Plain” of Luke (Lk. 6:20b-49, where though still on “the mountain,” v. 12, he “came down” some and “stood on a level place” (v. 17). Both sermons begin with beatitudes (Mt. 5:3-12; Lk. 6:20-23) and both end with an illustration with two houses, one of which survives the storm (Mt. 7:21-27; Lk. 6:46-49). Along the way, both present teaching on retaliation (Mt. 5:38-42; Lk. 6-29-30), on love of one’s enemies (Mt. 5:43-48; Lk. 6:27-36), on judging (Mt. 7:1-5; Lk. 6:37-42; cf. Mk. 4:24-25), on the Golden Rule (Mt. 7:12; Lk. 6:31), and knowing people “by their fruits” (Mt. 7:15-20; Lk. 6:43-45). Parallel passages from Luke to this reading from Matthew are presented in a separate file, On Treasures.

The immediate context of this reading from Matthew is a continuation of Jesus’ instructions on aspects of piety, part of what J. Andrew Overman calls, “a unity devoted to the subject of possessions” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Mt. 6:19-34). Dale C. Allison, Jr., offers a similar analysis. “The four paragraphs which make up this passage [i.e. Mt. 6:19-34] have to do with earthly treasure–vv. 19-21 with not storing it up, vv. 22-3 with being generous, v. 24 with serving God instead of mammon, and vv. 25-34 with not being anxious about food and clothing” (The Oxford Bible Commentary, 2001, p. 856, on Mt. 6:19-34).

Of treasures, Jesus says, “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal; but store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (Mt. 6:19-21). The point is clearly a matter of values, whether one should focus on providing for life in this world (“on earth”), or do those things that will have value in the long term, that is, in relation to God and his kingdom. Where one puts his “treasure” is a clear indication of the focus of his “heart” (v. 21). The point of Luke’s version is essentially the same. “Sell your possessions, and give alms,” says Jesus. “Make purses for yourselves that do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (Lk. 12:33-34). With reference to the purses “that do not wear out,” C. G. Montefiore suggests that “Luke’s parallel verses may be more original” because “the opening of Luke xii, 33 seems to imply: the end is near” (The Synoptic Gospels, vol. II, 1968, p.106 on Mt. 6:19-21). As to the meaning, he says, “The right use of terrestrial treasures is to use them as means for the acquisition of ‘heavenly’ treasures. The doctrine is Rabbinic. Several close parallels could be given” (ibid., pp. 106-107).

In the beginning of the saying about the healthy eye, the wording of both versions is very similar. “The eye (‘Your eye,’ Lk.) is the lamp of the body (‘your body,’ Lk.). So if (‘If,’ Lk.) your eye is healthy, your whole body will be (‘is,’ Lk.) full of light; but if your eye (‘it,’ Lk.) is unhealthy (‘is not healthy,’ Lk.), your whole body (‘your body,’ Lk.) Will be (‘is,’ Lk.) full of darkness” (Mt. 6:22, 23a; Lk. 11:34). In Matthew, Jesus continues with a simple conclusion that focuses on the darkness, “If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!” (Mt. 6:23b); but in Luke, he continues with an admonition and a more elaborate conclusion that focuses on the light. “Therefore,” says Jesus, “consider whether the light in you is not darkness. If then your whole body is full of light, with no part of it in darkness, it will be as full of light as when a lamp gives you light with its rays” (Lk. 11:35-36).

The contrast here is between a healthy (aJplou:V, haplous) eye and an unhealthy (ponhrovV, ponēros) eye. The former term is defined as “single, without guile, sincere, straightforward” (Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich [BDAG], A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3^rd ed., 2000, s.v. aJplou:V, haplous). “Of the eye,” continues the lexical entry, ( . . . with ref. to frank expression) single = unjaundiced, sincere” (ibid.). The earlier edition of the the lexicon (BAGD= the Greek Lexicon of Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich-Danker, 2^nd ed. 1979, s.v. haplous), includes the following note: “HJCadbury, The Single Eye: HTR 47, ‘54, 69-74 holds out strongly for generous; opposed by T Thienemann, Gordon Review 1, ‘55, 10-22.” The meaning, “generous,” is adopted by William Barclay, “The word for single [AV = KJV, where NRSV has ‘healthy’] is haplous, and its corresponding noun is haplotes. Regularly in the Greek of the Bible these words mean generous and generosity” (The Gospel of Matthew, vol 1, rev. ed., 1975, p. 245 on Mt. 6:22-23). So his exposition recommends various forms of generosity. Allison says that these verses (vv. 22, 23)

do not liken the eyes to a window but to a lamp (cf. Dan 10:6; Zech. 4; b. Sabb. 151b). The picture is not of light going in but of light going out. This accords with the common pre-modern understanding of vision, according to which the eyes have their own light (so e.g. Plato and Augustine). To say that when one’s eye is ‘healthy’ (generous, cf. Prov. 22:9; m ’Abot 2.19) one is full of light means that generosity is proof of the light within–just as to say that when one’s eye is ‘unhealthy’ (ungenerous, cf. 20:15) one is full of darkness means that covetousness is a sign of inner darkness. (op. cit., p. 856 on Mt. 6:22-23)

Montefiore says,

In Jewish idiom a ‘good eye’ is a metaphor for liberality, ‘an evil eye’ for niggardliness. We should therefore rather expect here as a contrast to ponēros (wicked), agathos (good), rather than haplous (sound). But (1) the phrase a sound eye may have had in the original saying a wider meaning than that of liberality, which is here imparted to it by the context. There is no such limitation in the passage as it stands in Luke (2) haplous may have been chosen because it interprets agathos as ‘liberal.’ According to this interpretation [v.] 23 means that if you are miserly and grudging, then spiritual light cannot penetrate unto you, and such light as you have becomes even darker, till it ceases to be light, and becomes darkness. (Montefiori, II, pp. 107-108, on Mt. 6:22-23)

If in the second set of sayings, the two versions are in part at least very similar, in the final sayings they are essentially verbatim. Jesus says, “No one (‘No slave,’ Lk.) can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth (mamwna:V, mamōnas [Aramaic] )” (Mt. 6:24 = Lk. 16:13). For “No one” (OujdeivV, Oudeis) in Matthew, Luke has “No slave” (Oujdei;V oijkevthV, Oudeis oiketēs), a difference of the one word “slave” (once in Mt., twice in Lk.), which, repeated in Luke, only emphasizes what is implied by “masters” (kuvrioi, kyrioi) and the verb “to serve” (douleuvein, douleuein) in both versions. At bottom, the issues of where we place our treasure, and whether we are generous, become issues of who is our master. Is Jesus Christ the Lord of our lives, or not? We are admonished to serve God whole-heartedly. The admonition to serve God, not wealth, is a resounding call to have our priorities right, especially in our spiritual lives.

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net