Jeremiah 38:1-13

Jeremiah in the “Pits” (the Cistern)

38:1 Now Shephatiah son of Mattan, Gedaliah son of Pashhur, Jucal son of Shelemiah, and Pashhur son of Malchiah heard the words that Jeremiah was saying to all the people, 2 Thus says the LORD, Those who stay in this city shall die by the sword, by famine, and by pestilence; but those who go out to the Chaldeans shall live; they shall have their lives as a prize of war, and live. 3 Thus says the LORD, This city shall surely be handed over to the army of the king of Babylon and be taken. 4 Then the officials said to the king, "This man ought to be put to death, because he is discouraging the soldiers who are left in this city, and all the people, by speaking such words to them. For this man is not seeking the welfare of this people, but their harm." 5 King Zedekiah said, "Here he is; he is in your hands; for the king is powerless against you." 6 So they took Jeremiah and threw him into the cistern of Malchiah, the king's son, which was in the court of the guard, letting Jeremiah down by ropes. Now there was no water in the cistern, but only mud, and Jeremiah sank in the mud.

Jeremiah Rescued

7 Ebed-melech the Ethiopian, a eunuch in the king's house, heard that they had put Jeremiah into the cistern. The king happened to be sitting at the Benjamin Gate, 8 So Ebed-melech left the king's house and spoke to the king, 9 "My lord king, these men have acted wickedly in all they did to the prophet Jeremiah by throwing him into the cistern to die there of hunger, for there is no bread left in the city." 10 Then the king commanded Ebed-melech the Ethiopian, "Take three men with you from here, and pull the prophet Jeremiah up from the cistern before he dies." 11 So Ebed-melech took the men with him and went to the house of the king, to a wardrobe of the storehouse, and took from there old rags and worn-out clothes, which he let down to Jeremiah in the cistern by ropes. 12 Then Ebed-melech the Ethiopian said to Jeremiah, "Just put the rags and clothes between your armpits and the ropes." Jeremiah did so. 13 Then they drew Jeremiah up by the ropes and pulled him out of the cistern. And Jeremiah remained in the court of the guard. (Jeremiah 38:11-13, NRSV)

On October 18, 2007 (Thursday in the week of the Twentieth Sunday after Pentecost, references for the week of the Sunday closest to October 12, Year One), comments were repeated with editing and supplement from October 13, 2007 (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 12, Year One); they are repeated again here with editing and supplement:

At the end of Jeremiah, chapter 37, he is imprisoned “in the court of the guard with food rations (Jer. 37:21), an improvement by order of King Zedekiah over the initial harsh treatment upon his arrest (vv. 34-36). As chapter 38 begins, however, there is a turn for the worse. In some respects, there is a replay of events from chapter 37. Jeremiah’s word f rom the LORD in chapter 37 is that the Babylonian army “shall return and fight against this city; they shall take it and burn it with fire” (Jer. 37:8). As chapter 38 begins, Jeremiah is confronted with more enemies. “Now Shephatiah son of Mattan, Gedaliah son of Pashur, Jucal son of Shelemiah, and Pashhur son of Malchiah heard the words that Jeremiah was saying to all the people” (Jer. 38:1). According to Marvin A. Sweeney, “Shephatiah son of Mattan and Gedaliah son of Pashhur are otherwise unknown, although the latter may be the son of Pashhur who placed Jeremiah in stocks (21:1 [20:2])” (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, on Jer. 38:1-2). For “Jucal son of Shelemiah,” Sweeney refers to 37:3, and for “Pashur son of Malchiah,” he refers to 21:1 (ibid.). Jeremiah is quoted by these enemies as saying,

Thus says the LORD, Those who stay in this city shall die by the sword, by famine, and by pestilence; but those who go out to the Chaldeans shall live; they shall have their lives as a prize of war, and live. Thus says the LORD, This city shall surely be handed over to the army of the king of Babylon and be taken. (Jer. 38:2-3, NRSV)

In the former chapter, Jeremiah is accused of desertion and arrested while attempting to enter the land of Benjamin to inspect his holdings (37:12-15). He “was put in the cistern house, in the cells, and remained their many days” (v. 16). In the present chapter, the officials respond to the charge made by Jeremiah’s enemies, the court officials, Shephetiah, Gedaliah, Jucal and Pashur (38:1): “This man ought to be put to death, because he is discouraging the soldiers who are left in this city, and all the people, by speaking such words to them. For this man is not seeking the welfare of this people, but their harm” (38:4). The king–reluctantly, apparently– lets them have their way. “Here he is,” says King Zedekiah, “he is in your hands; for the king is powerless against you” (v. 5). And again, Jeremiah is put in a cistern. “So they took Jeremiah and threw him into the cistern of Malchiah, the king's son, which was in the court of the guard, letting Jeremiah down by ropes. Now there was no water in the cistern, but only mud, and Jeremiah sank in the mud” (v. 6). Mark E. Biddle notes the fact that “The cistern was nearly dry, indicating a time shortly before Nebuchadrezzar’s final assault, August 586 BCE (52:5-7)” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Jer. 38:6). Sweeney comments, “Jeremiah is arrested for treason. Malchiah is Pashhur’s father. His designation as the king’s son indicates that he is a royal official (cf. Zeph. 1:8).

Biddle suggests that chapters 37 and 38 “may be alternate accounts of the same event” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., on 38:1-13; cf. Patrick D. Miller, The Book of Jeremiah (The New Interpreter’s Bible, VI [2001], p. 849), which is possible, given the chaotic situation under siege. Miller, however, also notes that “Ebed-melech’s report that there is no bread left in the city [38:9] picks up directly on the final words of chap. 37” (ibid.). (One wonders how records of any kind were preserved!) But whether Jeremiah was released to proclaim his message and then arrested again, or his message was being recalled from earlier is unclear. Jeremiah had many bad moments, discouraging days, but this must have been one of his lowest–“in the pits,” so to speak. Here again, however, there is something of relief for Jeremiah. We are told that “Ebed-melech (j`l,m,-db,f,, ‘eved-melek, ‘servant of the king’) the Ethiopian (yw9UKha, hakkûšî ), a eunuch (syr9sA wyx9, ’îš sārîs) in the king’s house, heard that they had put Jeremiah into the cistern” (v. 7a). William L. Holladay defines wUK (kûš, ‘Cush’) as a “territory in south, variously located: Nubia and S. Sudan, or astride the Red Sea, or land of Kassites, to the east” (A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 1971, 10^th corrected impression 1988, s.v. wUK, kûš). He defines syr9sA (sārîs) as “1. eunuch 2 Kings 20:18 . . . 2 (eunuch who is a) court official 2 Kings 23:11” (ibid., s.v. syr9sA, sārîs). Leo G. Perdue, revised by Robert R. Wilson, says “Ebed-melech [was] an Ethiopian and either a eunuch or palace official (Hebrew saris). Later he receives an oracle from Jeremiah promising he would survive the destruction of Jerusalem (39:15-18)” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Jer. 38:7). “Ironically,” says Mark E. Biddle, “Jeremiah was delivered from murder at the hands of his country-men by an Ethiopian court official (Heb. ‘saris’ does not necessarily refer to a physical eunuch; see 39:15-18). “The king,” says the narrator, “happened to be sitting at the Benjamin Gate, So Ebed-melech left the king’s house and spoke to the king, ‘My lord king, these men have acted wickedly in all they did to the prophet Jeremiah by throwing him into the cistern to die there of hunger, for there is no bread left in the city” (38:7b-9). And again, the king responds with mercy, of a sort. In chapter 38 Zedekiah consents to their keeping Jeremiah in custody (38:5), but also gives a favorable ear to Ebed-melech’s proposal to rescue Jeremiah from the cistern “before he dies.” Apparently, there is some ambivalence on Zedekiah’s part. Miller refers to “the odd relationship between Zedekiah and the prophet” (op. cit., p. 849). “Then the king commanded Ebed-melech the Ethiopian, ‘Take three men with you from here, and pull the prophet Jeremiah up from the cistern before he dies’ ” (v. 10). With this authorization, “Ebed-melech took the men with him and went to the house of the king, to a wardrobe of the storehouse, and took from there old rags and worn-out clothes, which he let down to Jeremiah in the cistern by ropes” (v. 11).

While Ebed-melech’s helpers remain nameless here, his methods are described in some detail. “Then Ebed-melech the Ethiopian said to Jeremiah, "Just put the rags and clothes between your armpits and the ropes." Jeremiah did so. Then they drew Jeremiah up by the ropes and pulled him out of the cistern. And Jeremiah remained in the court of the guard” (vv. 12-13). And we are told that Zedekiah has another question for Jeremiah (v. 14), but that comes in tomorrow’s reading. Among other reflections on Jeremiah’s situation here, Miller presents the following:

The reaction of the leadership [the ‘officials’] to Jeremiah as articulated in 38:4 is an appropriate text for thinking about the resistance of political leaders to any kind of moral or religious direction, any kind of counsel of conscience that involves a threat to national honor. It is the danger of patriotism, but patriotism is too simple a cliché at this point. Our instincts are so set for resistance to any form of domination, for victory over our enemies, for pulling together in any sort of foreign conflict, that we cannot countenance another mode of conduct and cannot allow a moral claim that suggests we might not seek victory and must accept defeat. This is a kind of secularized form of the “God is on our side” claim that surreptitiously always guides national conduct. Any other conduct and any other proposal or counsel is automatically and inherently treasonous and to be suppressed. (op. cit., p. 852, in Reflections on Jer. 37:1-39:18).

1 Corinthians 14:26-33a (33b-36) 37-40

All Things Decently and In Order

26 What should be done then, my friends? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. 27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn; and let one interpret. 28 But if there is no one to interpret, let them be silent in church and speak to themselves and to God. 29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. 30 If a revelation is made to someone else sitting nearby, let the first person be silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged. 32 And the spirits of prophets are subject to the prophets, 33 for God is a God not of disorder but of peace.

(As in all the churches of the saints, 34 women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. 35 If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. 36 Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only ones it has reached?)

37 Anyone who claims to be a prophet, or to have spiritual powers, must acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord. 38 Anyone who does not recognize this is not to be recognized. 39 So, my friends, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues; 40 but all things should be done decently and in order. (1 Corinthians 14:26-33a, [33b-36], 37-40, NRSV)

On March 11, 2008 (Tuesday in the week of the Fifth Sunday of Lent, Year Two), comments were repeated with some editing from October 17 and 18, 2007 (Wednesday and Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 12, Year One), when comments, respectively, on 1 Corinthians 14:13-25 and on 14:26-33a, 37-40, were repeated with some revision from earlier, from October 12 and 13, 2005 (Wednesday and Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 12, Year One), and from April 3 and 4, 2006 (Monday and Tuesday in the week of the Fifth Sunday of Lent, Year Two). Relevant comments are repeated here with editing and supplement:

In the last two Epistle readings (Tuesday and Wednesday of this week), Paul has been discussing the relative value of the gifts of prophecy and of speaking in tongues. In yesterday’s reading, he said, “I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you; nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind, in order to instruct others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue [i.e., in a language not understood by others]” (1 Cor. 14:18-19). In conclusion of yesterday’s reading, Paul said, “But if all prophesy, an unbeliever or outsider who enters is reproved by all and called to account by all. After the secrets of the unbeliever’s heart are disclosed, that person will bow down before God and worship him, declaring, ‘God is really among you’ ” (vv. 24-25).

Paul then moves on to general instructions about orderly worship. “What should be done then, my friends?” he asks (v. 26a). He takes note of the possibilities. “When you come together, each one has a hymn (yalmovV, psalmos, lit. ‘psalm’), a lesson (didachv, didachē, lit. ‘teaching’), a revelation (ajpokavlupsiV, apokalypsis, lit. ‘revelation,’ ‘disclosure’), a tongue (glw:ssa, glōssa, ‘language’), or an interpretation ( eJrmhneiva, hermēneia, ‘translation,’ or ‘interpretation’)” (v. 26b). This list may reflect what was happening rather than Paul’s model worship program. But he adds a guiding principle: “Let all things be done for building up (oijkodomhv, oikodomē )” (v. 26c). The word oijkodomhv (oikodomē ) refers to the “process of building, building, construction,” here in the figurative sense “of spiritual strengthening . . . edifying, edification building up” (Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich [BDAG], A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3^rd ed., 2000, s.v. oijkodomhv, oikodomē , meaning no. (1) (b) ). It is related to the verb oijkodomevw (oikodomeō ), in the sense “to help improve ability to function in living responsibly and effectively, strengthen, build up, make more able” (BDAG, s.v. oijkodomevw, oikodomeō , meaning no. (3) ). Our worship should strengthen the church in this sense.

“If anyone speaks in a tongue,” says Paul, “let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn; and let one interpret” (v. 27). Even with this limitation, there is a further qualification. “But if there is no one to interpret, let them be silent in church and speak to themselves and to God” (v. 28). “Let two or three prophets speak,” says Paul (compare the numbers for those who speak in tongues), but rather than further limitation, he advises, “let the others weigh what is said” (v. 29). According to Victor R. Furnish, “Every prophet’s utterances are subject to critical analysis and evaluation (see also v. 32; 1 Thess. 5:19-21). It is unclear whether others refers to all of the others present or only to other prophets” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on 1 Cor. 14:29). According to Richard A. Horsley, “Over against the spontaneous flow of ‘tongues,’ Paul insists on only a few speaking in turn and on intelligible interpretation. Instructions on prophecy are far less restrictive” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on 1 Cor. 14:26-33). “If a revelation is made to someone else sitting nearby, let the first person be silent” (v. 30). This refers to prophets, as the continuation shows. “For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged” (v. 31). And prophecy is to take place in an orderly manner. “And the spirits of prophets are subject to the prophets, for God is a God not of disorder but of peace” (vv. 32-33). For the phrase, “spirits of the prophets,” Furnish refers to Rev. 22:6 (op. cit., on v. 32).

Take note that verses 33b-36 are omitted from the Daily Office Lectionary of the (Episcopal) Book of Common Prayer, but are included within parentheses in the Presbyterian and Lutheran readings. Because it contradicts the earlier statement that “any woman who prays or prophesies with her head unveiled disgraces her head” (11:5), the statement in this context that “women should be silent in the churches” (14:34, cf. v. 35) is considered by many to be a later addition by someone else to Paul’s original text. The fact that these verses occur in some manuscripts after verse 40 (Mss. D F G 88* five “Old Latin” mss. and a couple fathers of the 4^th and 9^th centuries), by suggesting their uncertain place in the text, would lend credibility to this view, which is supported by Furnish (ibid., on vv. 34-35) and Horsley, who adds, “Moreover, nothing in these statements has to do with the manifestations of the Spirit in the community and ‘all’ in vv. 23-24, 31 and ‘each one’ in v. 26 imply that women as well as men pray and prophesy” (op. cit., on vv. 34-35).

Ben Witherington III regards them as authentic, but says that they are “not a programmatic silencing of women in the ekklēsia [church, or Christian assembly]”:

[A. C.] Wire, Corinthian Women Prophets, pp. 153f., who is right about the authenticity but fails to note the rhetorical function of these verses as a correction of abuses in worship–as is most of the rest of chs. 11-14. 14:34f. is not a programmatic silencing of women in the ekklēsia. One must weigh not only what Paul says but also the function of his words in context to discover his rhetorical intent. (Conflict & Community in Corinth, 1994, p. 288, n. 50)

Witherington explains as follows:

During the time of the weighing of the prophecies some women, probably married women, who themselves may have been prophetesses and thus entitled to weigh what was said, were asking questions, perhaps inappropriate questions, and the worship service was being disrupted. Paul urges . . . that Christian worship not be turned into a question-and-answer session. In light of the discussion of pagan prophecy above [i.e. earlier by Witherington], it is very believable that these women assumed that Christian prophets or prophetesses functioned much like the oracle at Delphi, who only prophesied in response to questions, including questions about purely personal matters. Paul argues that Christian prophecy is different: Prophets and prophetesses speak in response to the prompting of the Holy Spirit, without any human priming of the pump. Paul then limits such questions to another location, namely home. He may imply that the husband or man who was to be asked was either a prophet or at least able to answer such questions at a more appropriate time. (ibid., p. 287)

The next verse, “Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only ones it has reached?”(v. 36) would make a suitable connection with the instructions about speaking in tongues and prophecy (vv. 26:33a), but Furnish says, “Some interpreters who view vv. 34-35 as a non-Pauline addition include this verse as well” (op. cit., on v. 36). And the remaining verses continue instruction about prophecy and related matters. “Anyone who claims to be a prophet, or to have spiritual powers, must acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord” (v. 37). Paul implies something of what he says later in Romans, “When we cry ‘Abba! Father!’ it is that very Spirit bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God” (Rom. 8:15b, 16). There would be a congruence of spirits, so to speak. “Anyone who does not recognize this,” says Paul, “is not to be recognized” (1 Cor. 14:38). And so Paul encourages the Corinthians in their worship practices, but insists on order. “So, my friends, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues; but all things should be done decently and in order” (vv. 39-40). “Underlying this directive,” says Furnish, “is the one in v. 26, and underlying both is the appeal to follow the more excellent way of love (12:31; 14:1; 16:14)” (ibid., on v. 40). According to Horsley, “Paul bluntly asserts his authority, along with a threat against noncompliance, and then summarizes the argument of chs. 12-14)” (op. cit., on vv. 36-40).

Matthew 10:34-42

Not Peace, but a Sword (cf. Lk 12.51-53; 14.26-27)

34 "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.

35 For I have come to set a man against his father,

and a daughter against her mother,

and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law;

36 and one's foes will be members of one's own household.

37 Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38 and whoever does not take up the cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Those who find their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it. (Matthew 10:34-39, NRSV)

Rewards (cf. Mk 9.41)

40 "Whoever welcomes you welcomes me, and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me. 41 Whoever welcomes a prophet in the name of a prophet will receive a prophet's reward; and whoever welcomes a righteous person in the name of a righteous person will receive the reward of the righteous; 42 and whoever gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones in the name of a disciple--truly I tell you, none of these will lose their reward." (Matthew 10:40-42, NRSV)

The following comments are based on those of October 18, 2007 (Thursday in the week of the Twentieth Sunday after Pentecost, references for the week of the Sunday closest to October 12, Year One), of May 17, 2008 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to May 11, Year Two), of May 24, 2009 (the Seventh Sunday of Easter, Year One), and earlier comments as noted on those dates respectively:

In Matthew, Jesus second major speech continues to its conclusion with the formula, “Now when Jesus had finished instructing his twelve disciples, he went on from there to teach and proclaim his message in their cities” (Mt. 11:1; cf. 7:28:29; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1). For an outline of the references for parallel passages for this discourse, see the separate file, Jesus’ Second Major Discourse References. In this part of the speech (Mt. 10:34-42), the sayings correspond to sayings in various contexts of Mark and Luke, and even of John. This pattern of relationships, explained by assuming that Matthew has drawn material together on a topical basis, is presented in the separate file, Discipleship--Divisions, Conditions, Rewards.

Jesus challenges the disciples, saying, “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword” (Mt. 10:34; cf. Lk 12:51, with “division” for Mt.’s “a sword”). The divisions within households that Jesus describes are introduced in Luke. “From now on five in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three” (Lk. 12:52). Where Matthew describes specific divisions, Luke presents them as reciprocal. “For I have come to set a man against his father,” says Jesus in Matthew (Mt. 10:35a), where in Luke he says, “they will be divided: father against son / and son against father” (Lk 12:53a, b). Where Matthew’s version pits “a daughter against her mother” (Mt. 10:35b), Luke’s version evens the balance, “mother against daughter / and daughter against mother” (Lk. 12:35c). A similar difference pertains to the reference to the “mother-in-law.” In Matthew, Jesus says, “and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law” (Mt. 10:35c), but in Luke, he says, “mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law / and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law” (Lk. 12:35d, e). In another context, Luke quotes Jesus as saying, “Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple” (Lk. 14:26). According to David L. Tiede, revised by Christopher R. Matthews, the word “hate” here is “prophetic hyperbole for the uncompromising loyalty required toward Jesus and the true family of disciples ([Lk.] 8:19-21; 9:57-62; see also 18:28-30)” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Lk. 14:26). In the present context, Matthew apparently softens the “prophetic hyperbole” a little, saying, “Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me” (Mt. 10:37). In both Gospels the saying is followed by the one about taking up (Mt.) or carrying (Lk.) one’s cross, “and whoever does not take up the cross and follow me is not worthy of me” (Mt. 10:38); “whoever does not carry the cross and follow me cannot be my disciple” (Lk. 14:27). Matthew includes another saying here that is found elsewhere in other Gospels. “Those who find their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it” (Mt. 10:39). “Those who try to make their life secure will lose it, but those who lose their life will keep it (Lk. 17:33; cf. Jn. 12:25).

On the face of it this passage seems rather too demanding. We have a saying, “Charity begins at home,” which has been attributed to Andria Terence, a Roman comic dramatist (185-159 B.C.). And so we resist–or most of us do, hopefully–the call to a commitment that might bring dissension within the family. William Barclay explains this “terrible choice” with reference to an appeal made by Oliver Cromwell to Lord Wharton (1649). He entitles this discussion, “The Warfare of the King’s Messenger” (The Gospel of Matthew, vol. 1, rev. ed., 1975, pp. 393-397, on Mt. 10:34-39). Barclay is aware that “warfare” is a metaphor here, as is the reference to “sword” in v. 34. “The ‘sword’ is not literal war, but diamerismos [diamerismovV, dissension, disunity] (Lk.); cf. Heb. iv. 12: as the word of God sifts the components of man’s being, so will the same word, as proclaimed by Jesus, do in human society” (Alan Hugh McNeile, The Gospel According to St Matthew, Thornapple Commentaries, reprinted 1980 from 1915 ed., p. 147, on Mt. 10:34).

Barclay says that Jesus “offers a choice; and a man has to choose sometimes between the closest ties of earth and loyalty to Jesus Christ. He further explains with a quotation from Bunyan’s Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners:

The parting with my wife and poor children hath often been to me in this place, as the pulling the flesh from my bones; and that no only because I am somewhat too fond of these great mercies, but also because I should have often brought to my mind the many hardships, miseries, and wants that my poor family was like to meet with, should I be taken from them, especially my poor blind child, who lay nearer my heart than all I had besides. . . . But yet, recalling myself, thought I, I must venture you all with God, though it goeth to the quick to leave you; O I saw in this condition, I was a man who was pulling down his house upon the head of his wife and children; yet thought I, I must do it, I must do it. (cited by Barclay, p. 395)

Barclay sums up as follows: “Once again, this terrible choice will come very seldom; in God’s mercy to many of us it may never come; but the fact remains that all loyalties must give place to loyalty to God.” I am also reminded that the New Testament says, “And whoever does not provide for relatives, and especially for family members, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Tim. 5:8).

J. Andrew Overman notes briefly that “Jesus’ presence creates division also” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on Mt. 10:34-39), and refers to Micah 7:6, “for the son treats the father with contempt, / the daughter rises up against her mother, / the daughter -in-law against her mother-in-law; your enemies are members of your own household,” but that comes from what Gregory Mobley calls “a lament for a desperate society” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., 2001, on Micah 7:1-7), and contrasts with Malachi 4:6, “He [the prophet Elijah] will turn the hearts of parents to their children and the hearts of children to their parents, so that I will not come and strike the land with a curse.”

We come to a section on the Rewards of Discipleship. “Whoever welcomes you welcomes me,” says Jesus, “and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me” (Mt. 10:40. John’s version of this saying is similar. “Very truly, I tell you, whoever receives one whom I send receives me; and whoever receives me receives him who sent me” (Jn. 13:20). By describing the rewards for welcoming the disciples (Mt. 10:40) in terms comparable to the welcoming of prophets and righteous persons (v. 41), Jesus in effect characterizes their mission as prophetic. But the rewards are promised to those who provide for the needs of “one of these little ones in the name of a disciple” (v. 42). I should think that televised stories of persons helping young victims of recent hurricanes and other disasters might be included in this promise. For welcoming or receiving, Luke’s version has listening. “Whoever listens to you listens to me” (Lk. 10:16a), which implies, if not the certain effectiveness of the disciples’ witness, at least that their witness represents Jesus’ own message. In Matthew, Jesus illustrates with an example that introduces the promise of a reward. “Whoever welcomes a prophet in the name of a prophet will receive a prophet's reward; and whoever welcomes a righteous person in the name of a righteous person will receive the reward of the righteous” (Mt. 10:41). But the reward for giving a cup of water in Jesus’ name was already suggested by Mark’s version (Mk. 9:41; cf. Mt. 10:42). In Luke, the negative side of the possible response to the disciples’ witness balances the positive response. Listening to the disciples is listening to Jesus (Lk. 10:16a, as noted above), but “whoever rejects you rejects me, and whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me” (Lk. 10:16b; cf. Jn. 5:23b).

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net