Lamentations 2:8-15

The following comments are based on the comments of earlier occasions, those of October 24, 2007 (Wednesday in the week of the Twenty-first Sunday after Pentecost, references for the week of the Sunday closest to October 19, Year One), relevant comments from those of March 19 and 20, 2008 (Wednesday and Maundy Thursday of Holy Week, Year Two), when the readings were Lamentations 2:1-9 and 10-18, respectively, and on earlier comments as noted there.

Lamentations has been described as “a sequence of five lyric poems that lament the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 586 BCE (see 2 Kings 25:8-21)” (F. W. Dobbs-Allsopp, NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, Introduction to Lamentations). Remarkably, however, while there are eight references to Jerusalem’s “enemies” (1:2, 5, 10, 21; 2:16, 22; 3:46, 52) and other references to the “enemy” (singular), and exile is mentioned twice (1:3; 4:22), the Babylonians are never mentioned as such. Based on Lamentations, it is the LORD that has brought about Jerusalem’s disaster.

Chapter 2 of Lamentations has been called “The People’s Agony and their Cry to God for Mercy” ( R. B. Y. Scott & Roland E. Murphy, NOAB, 2^nd ed., 1994, on Lam. 2:1-22). Daniel Grossberg just calls it “the second lament,” but characterizes it as angry in tone. “In contrast to the previous ch.,” he says, “where the tone is one of despair and mourning, the tone of this ch. is angry. God is depicted throughout as an angry enemy who destroyed the physical structures of Jerusalem with violent force” (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, on Lam. 2:1-22).

The acrostic pattern continues, beginning again at the beginning of the alphabet: “How (hk!yx2, ’êkāh) the Lord in his anger / has humiliated daughter Zion!” (Lam. 2:1a). “The Lord has destroyed (fl01b9, billa‘ ) without mercy / all the dwellings of Jacob” (v. 2a). Note the following (repeating the first two letters): hk!yx2, ’êkāh, “How” (Lam. 2:1, NRSV; “Alas!” NJPS; cf. 1:1); fl01b9, billa‘, “has destroyed” (v. 2, NRSV; “laid waste” NJPS); fd1G0!, gāda‘, “cut down” (v. 3); j`r1D!, dārak, “has bent” (v. 4, NRSV; “bent” NJPS, in the sense of “draw [a bow],” cf. William L. Holladay, Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon, 10<sup>th</sup> printing, 1985, s.v. j`r1DA); hy!h!, hāyāh,” has become [like]” (v. 5 NRSV; “has acted [like]” NJPS); smoH4Y0av1, wayyachmōs, “has broken down” (v. 6 NRSV; “has stripped” NJPS); Hn1z!. zānach, “has scorned” (v. 7 NRSV; “has rejected” NJPS); bw1H!, chāšav. “determined” (v. 8 NRSV; “resolved” NJPS); Ufb9F!, tov‘û, “have sunk” (v. 9). One notes that most of these alphabetical lines begin with the verb, and the verbs describe devastation. It’s not the enemy nation, Babylon, that has brought about the devastation , but rather, the Lord (usually yn!dox3 rather than hvhy (vv. 1, 2, 5, 7a, cf. 1:14; the Biblica Hebraica Stuttgartensia [BHS] has notes for each of these indicating that many manuscripts have the latter). “The first eight verses,” says Dobbs-Allsopp, “focus on the Divine Warrior’s battle against Jerusalem” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Lam. 2:1-8). The verbs listed above describe one crippling action after another, which Zion blames on the Lord.

Today’s reading begins with verse 8. “The LORD (hvhy, YHWH) determined (bw1HA, chāšav) to lay in ruins / the wall of daughter Zion; / he stretched the line; / he did not withhold his hand from destroying; he caused rampart and wall to lament;; they languish together” (Lam. 2:8). “He stretched the line,” says Dobbs-Allsopp, means “ ‘he measured with a measuring-line’ (2 Kgs. 21:13; Isa. 34:11; Zech. 1:16; Job 38:5), as in a building project (Jer. 31:39; Zech. 1:16). Demolition also requires planning and measurement (see 2 Kings 24:13; Isa. 34:11)” (ibid., on v. 8). Grossberg says this “is the normal procedure for erecting a building, but here God is measuring how to destroy it” (cf. Amos 7:7-9)” (op. cit., on v. 8).

A couple verses follow with description of desolate Jerusalem (2:9-10).

9. Ufb4FA, tāv ^e‘û. “Her gates have sunk into the ground; / he has ruined and broken her bars; / her king and princes are among the nations; / guidance (hrAOT, tôrāh) is no more, / and her prophets obtain / no vision from the LORD” (v. 9). “Her gates have sunk into the ground,” says Dobbs-Allsopp, means “either the battered doors lying in the dirt, or the ruined gate-towers (Jer. 14:2)” (op. cit., on v. 9). He adds that “among the nations” means “in exile” (ibid.). Werner E. Lemke, revised by Kathleen O’Connor, says, “Guidance [hrAOT, tôrāh], or priestly ‘instruction’ [is meant]” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Lam. 2:9).

10. Ubw4y2, yēš^evû (Many ancient versions have the perfect–past–tense, Ubw4y!, yāš^evû, instead of the imperfect, translated in the present tense NRSV, cf. AV/KJV). The elders of daughter Zion / sit on the ground in silence; / they have thrown dust on their heads / and put on sackcloth; / the young girls of Jerusalem / have bowed their heads to the ground” (Lam. 2:10). The Hebrew word order puts “sit” first, and thus fits the verse into the acrostic. The word order is natural in Hebrew, but awkward in English: “[they] sit to the ground motionless [lit. ‘stand still’ based on the LXX, cf. BHS apparatus] the elders of the house of Zion.” “Each action,” says Grossberg, “is a sign of mourning (see Ezek. 27:30; Job 2:12-13). Some current Jewish mourning practices reflect these ancient practices. Mention of elders and maidens [‘young girls’ NRSV] is an example of a merism, a literary device whereby two opposites are used to express totality: The two and all in between mourn” (op. cit., on v. 10).

Then the poet gets personal.

11. UlK0!, kālû. “My eyes are spent with weeping; / my stomach churns; / my bile is poured out on the ground / because of the destruction of my people (Ym09fa-tBa, bat-‘ammî), / because infants and babes faint / in the streets (tObHor4, r ^echōvôth) of the city” (v. 11). According to Dobbs-Allsopp, “The poet’s words echo those of Zion in 1:20” (op. cit., on v. 11). “My people,” he adds, is lit. ‘Daughter of My People,’ another of the city’s epithets (cf. 3:48; 4:3, 6, 10).” “Streets,” he says is “better, ‘plazas’ or ‘squares,’ broad open places near gates (Judg. 19:15; Esth. 4:6; 6:9; 2 Chr. 32:6)” (ibid.; cf. William L. Holladay, A concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 1971, 4^th impression, 1978, s.v. bHor4, r ^echôv).

12. Mt!m0ox9l4, l^e’immōthām. “They cry to their mothers, / ‘Where is bread and wine?’ / as they faint like the wounded / in the streets of the city, / as their life is poured out / on their mothers' bosom” (v. 12). The NJPS translation brings out the continuing action aspect of the imperfect tense (cf. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, 2^nd English ed., 1910, reprint 1985, sec. 107): “They keep asking their mothers, ‘Where is bread and wine?’ ” (v. 12a, b). Dobbs-Allsopp comments, “The lives of innocent victims are poured out on their mothers’ bosom where they should find succor (Ruth 4:16; cf. P)s. 22:9; Job 3:12) and security (1 Kings 3:20)” (op. cit., on Lam. 2:12).

13. hm!, māh. “What can I say for you, to what compare you, / O daughter Jerusalem? / To what can I liken you, that I may comfort you, / O virgin daughter Zion? / For vast as the sea is your ruin; / who can heal you?” (v. 13). Grossberg explains the phrase “vast as the sea,” which he calls a “simile expressing infinite size (see Isa. 48:18; Ps. 104:25; Job 11:9)” (op. cit., on Lam. 2:13).

14. j`y9x1yb9n4, n^evî’ayik. “Your prophets (seers, NJPS) have seen for you / false and deceptive visions; / they have not exposed your iniquity / to restore your fortunes, / but have seen oracles for you / that are false and misleading” (v. 14). To the “oracles of delusion and deception” (v. 14 NJPS; ‘false and deceptive visions’ NRSV), Grossberg compares Jeremiah 14:13-16; 23:25-27)” (ibid., on v. 14).

15. Uqp4s!&, sāf ^eqû. “All who pass along the way / clap their hands at you; / they hiss and wag their heads / at daughter Jerusalem; / ‘Is this the city that was called / the perfection of beauty, / the joy of all the earth?’ ” (v. 15). The Hebrew word order puts the second half-line first, thus starting with (they) clap: “Clap their hands at you / all who pass along the way” (awkward order in English). This word order has the effect of emphasizing the derisive clapping, to which the acrostic pattern also calls attention. Dobbs-Allsopp calls the references to “clap . . . hiss . . . wag, gestures of derision and contempt” (op. cit., on v. 15; cf. Grossberg on v. 15, “gestures of shock or derision”).

So Jerusalem cries to God for mercy. Unfortunately, the Jewish people have made major contributions to our world and have been blessed in many ways, they nevertheless have also continued to see times of desolation and agony even in our “modern” world. And just as unfortunately, man’s inhumanity to man, including genocide, continues around the world in many places.

or Jeremiah 41:4-18 (alternative reading, Presbyterian and Lutheran traditions)

4 On the day after the murder of Gedaliah, before anyone knew of it, 5 eighty men arrived from Shechem and Shiloh and Samaria, with their beards shaved and their clothes torn, and their bodies gashed, bringing grain offerings and incense to present at the temple of the LORD. 6 And Ishmael son of Nethaniah came out from Mizpah to meet them, weeping as he came. As he met them, he said to them, "Come to Gedaliah son of Ahikam." 7 When they reached the middle of the city, Ishmael son of Nethaniah and the men with him slaughtered them, and threw them into a cistern. 8 But there were ten men among them who said to Ishmael, "Do not kill us, for we have stores of wheat, barley, oil, and honey hidden in the fields." So he refrained, and did not kill them along with their companions.

9 Now the cistern into which Ishmael had thrown all the bodies of the men whom he had struck down was the large cistern that King Asa had made for defense against King Baasha of Israel; Ishmael son of Nethaniah filled that cistern with those whom he had killed. 10 Then Ishmael took captive all the rest of the people who were in Mizpah, the king's daughters and all the people who were left at Mizpah, whom Nebuzaradan, the captain of the guard, had committed to Gedaliah son of Ahikam. Ishmael son of Nethaniah took them captive and set out to cross over to the Ammonites.

11 But when Johanan son of Kareah and all the leaders of the forces with him heard of all the crimes that Ishmael son of Nethaniah had done, 12 they took all their men and went to fight against Ishmael son of Nethaniah. They came upon him at the great pool that is in Gibeon. 13 And when all the people who were with Ishmael saw Johanan son of Kareah and all the leaders of the forces with him, they were glad. 14 So all the people whom Ishmael had carried away captive from Mizpah turned around and came back, and went to Johanan son of Kareah. 15 But Ishmael son of Nethaniah escaped from Johanan with eight men, and went to the Ammonites. 16 Then Johanan son of Kareah and all the leaders of the forces with him took all the rest of the people whom Ishmael son of Nethaniah had carried away captive from Mizpah after he had slain Gedaliah son of Ahikam–soldiers, women, children, and eunuchs, whom Johanan brought back from Gibeon. 17 And they set out, and stopped at Geruth Chimham near Bethlehem, intending to go to Egypt 18 because of the Chaldeans; for they were afraid of them, because Ishmael son of Nethaniah had killed Gedaliah son of Ahikam, whom the king of Babylon had made governor over the land. (Jeremiah 41:4-18, NRSV)

The following comments are based on those of October 24, 2007 (Wednesday in the week of the Twenty-first Sunday after Pentecost, references for the week of the Sunday closest to October 19, Year One), which were repeated from October 19, 2005 (Wednesday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 19, Year One).

At the close of yesterday’s reading we learn that Gedaliah, appointed governor of what remained of Judah by the Babylonians (Jer. 40:7), was assassinated at dinner–of all places–by Ishmael. “As they ate bread together there at Mizpah, Ishmael son of Nethaniah and the ten men with him got up and struck down Gedaliah son of Ahikam son of Shaphan with the sword and killed him, because the king of Babylon had appointed him governor in the land” (Jer. 41:1b-2). According to Mark E. Biddle, “Ancient rules of hospitality and table fellowship bound host and guest to faithfulness toward one another. Ishmael’s act was therefore particularly heinous” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Jer. 41:1). For good measure–or ‘bad measure’ if you prefer–“Ishmael also killed all the Judeans who were with Gedaliah at Mizpah, and the Chaldean soldiers who happened to be there” (v. 3).

But the slaughter does not stop there. “On the day after the murder of Gedaliah, before anyone knew of it, eighty men arrived from Shechem and Shiloh and Samaria, with their beards shaved and their clothes torn, and their bodies gashed, bringing grain offerings and incense to present at the temple of the LORD” (vv. 4-5). “Significantly,” says Biddle, “worship continued in the Temple in accordance with Deuteronomy’s law of cult centralization (Deut. 12:5-6) even after the Babylonians pillaged it” (ibid., on vv. 4-10). “Perhaps,” says Leo G. Perdue, revised by Robert R. Wilson, “they were engaged in lamentation rituals in their mourning over the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Jer. 41:4-10). Marvin A. Sweeney says,

The shaved beards, torn garments, and gashed bodies are clear signs of mourning for the destroyed Temple (see also Zech. 7:1-7). Although the Temple has been destroyed, non-animal sacrifices were still offered at the holy site of the Temple. The loyalty of these northern Israelite men to the Jerusalem Temple may indicate that Josiah’s reforms and attempts to reunite Israel and Judah had been somewhat successful. (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, on Jer. 41:5)

But by coming to Jerusalem, these men walked into a trap, so to speak, for “Ishmael son of Nethaniah came out from Mizpah to meet them, weeping as he came. As he met them, he said to them, ‘Come to Gedaliah son of Ahikam.’ When they reached the middle of the city, Ishmael son of Nethaniah and the men with him slaughtered them, and threw them into a cistern” (vv. 6-7). Sweeney says, “Ishmael’s killing of these men appears rash. He may have killed them in an attempt to keep the assassination of Gedaliah quiet, although his motives may have been pure robbery” (ibid., on vv. 6-7). But some of the pilgrims escaped of those whom Ishmael killed. “But there were ten men among them,” we are told, “who said to Ishmael, ‘Do not kill us, for we have stores of wheat, barley, oil, and honey hidden in the fields’ So he refrained from killing them along with their companions” (v. 8). One suspects that Ishmael granted their request for reasons of greed. This arrangement, at any rate, did not bring Ishmael’s cruelty to an end.

We are informed that “the cistern into which Ishmael had thrown all the bodies of the men whom he had struck down was the large cistern that King Asa had made for defense against King Baasha of Israel” (v. 9a). According to Sweeney, “King Asa’s cistern is not mentioned elsewhere, although he did build up Geba and Mizpah (1 Kings 15:22; 2 Chron. 16:6)” (ibid., on v. 9). Ishmael apparently wants to dismantle the whole arrangement for a provincial government at Mizpah controlled by the Babylonians. “Then Ishmael took captive all the rest of the people who were in Mizpah, the king's daughters and all the people who were left at Mizpah, whom Nebuzaradan, the captain of the guard, had committed to Gedaliah son of Ahikam. Ishmael son of Nethaniah took them captive and set out to cross over to the Ammonites” (v. 10; cf. 40:13-14). “The daughters of the king,” says Sweeney, “would have been Ishmael’s own relatives as members of the House of David” (ibid., on v. 10). But Ishmael meets with some resistance, for “when Johanan son of Kareah and all the leaders of the forces with him heard of all the crimes that Ishmael son of Nethaniah had done, they took all their men and went to fight against Ishmael son of Nethaniah. They came upon him at the great pool that is in Gibeon” (vv. 11-12). According to Sweeney, “the pool of Gibeon [was] a key site in David’s and Joab’s defeat of a largely Benjaminite army led by Abner on behalf of Ish-bosheth, the son of Saul. David’s victory was a key event in his rise to the throne of the Benjaminite Saul. It is ironic that Ishmael’s defeat by forces loyal to Gedaliah takes place at the same location” (ibid., on vv. 11-12). “An avenging group under Johanan,” says Biddle, “overtook Ishmael at Gibeon (5 km [3 mi] southwest of Mizpah; 2 Sam. 2:13)” (op. cit., on vv. 11-18). The narrative continues: “And when all the people who were with Ishmael saw Johanan son of Kareah and all the leaders of the forces with him, they were glad” (v. 13). We remember that it was Johanan’s warning to Gedaliah that was ignored (cf. 40:13-16). “So all the people whom Ishmael had carried away captive from Mizpah turned around and came back, and went to Johanan son of Kareah” (v. 14). So Ishmael didn’t get far–three miles–with his captives, but he and his followers escape. “ But Ishmael son of Nethaniah escaped from Johanan with eight men, and went to the Ammonites” (v. 15). As Biddle describes it, “Ishmael and eight conspirators escaped to Ammon (40:14), but their captives were freed” (loc. cit.).

At this point, though Johanan had tried to prevent Ishmael’s assassination of Gedaliah, he becomes afraid of Babylonian reprisals for the killing of their appointed governor Gedaliah. “Then Johanan son of Kareah and all the leaders of the forces with him took all the rest of the people whom Ishmael son of Nethaniah had carried away captive from Mizpah after he had slain Gedaliah son of Ahikam–soldiers, women, children and eunuchs, whom Johanan brought back from Gibeon” (41:16). They apparently fear that there is no hope of peace if they remain in Mizpah. So, “they set out and stopped at Geruth Chimham (MhAvm4K9 tUrGe, gērûth kim[w]hām) near Bethlehem, intending to go to Egypt” (v. 17). There is some uncertainty about the place name “Geruth Chimham.” “Aquila reads ‘the sheepfolds of ’ ” (NJPS 1985, 1999 text note b). Biddle says “Geruth Chimham [is] (perhaps ‘Chimham’s Inn’) near Bethlehem, south of Jerusalem” (op. cit., on vv. 11-18). Willliam L. Holladay translates tUrGe (gērûth) as “hospitality” in the place name gērût kimhām, and marks this as the only occurrence in the Hebrew Bible (A concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 1971, 4^th impression, 1978, s.v. tUrGe, gērûth). Sweeney says the expression “Geruth Chimham, ‘the dwelling place of Chimcham,’ recalls the name of the young man assigned by Barzillai the Gileadite to support David during Abshalom’s revolt (2 Sam. 19:31-40; cf. 17:27-29. Apparently, the narrative attempts to contrast the experience of Ishmael with that of David to emphasize the House of David’s (i.e., Ishmael’s) opposition to God’s will” (op. cit., on v. 17).

The intention of Johanan and his followers “to go to Egypt” (v. 17) is explained: “because of the Chaldeans; for they were afraid of them, because Ishmael son of Nethaniah had killed Gedaliah son of Ahikam, whom the king of Babylon had made governor over the land” (v. 18).

1 Corinthians 15:51-58

51 Listen, I will tell you a mystery! We will not all die, but we will all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For this perishable body must put on imperishability, and this mortal body must put on immortality. 54 When this perishable body puts on imperishability, and this mortal body puts on immortality, then the saying that is written will be fulfilled:

"Death has been swallowed up in victory."

55 "Where, O death, is your victory?

Where, O death, is your sting?"

56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

58 Therefore, my beloved, be steadfast, immovable, always excelling in the work of the Lord, because you know that in the Lord your labor is not in vain. (1 Corinthians 15:51-58, NRSV)

The following comments are based on those of March 28, 2008 (Friday of Easter Week, Year Two), when comments were repeated with editing and supplement from October 24, 2007 (Wednesday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 19, Year One), when comments were repeated from April 21, 2006 (Friday of Easter Week, Year Two), when they were repeated with some supplementing from October 19, 2005 (Wednesday of the week of the Sunday closest to October 19, Year One).

This reading brings Paul’s chapter on resurrection to a close. He has contrasted the “physical body” and the “spiritual body,” the former “sown,” and the latter “raised” (1 Cor 15:44, cf. vv. 42-44, 46). He then compared Adam, “the first man . . . from the earth,” the “man of dust” (vv. 45, 47-48) with Christ, “the last Adam [‘man’], “the second man . . . from heaven,” the “man of heaven” (vv. 45, 47-48). Where as the first “became a living being,” the second “became a life-giving spirit” (v. 45). Yesterday’s reading concluded with the promise that “we will . . . bear the image of the man of heaven” (v. 49), and the clarification that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable” (v. 50).

Paul’s continuation today explains something of how we will “bear the image of the man of heaven,” and “inherit the imperishable.” “Listen,” he says, “I will tell you a mystery! We will not all die, but we will all be changed” (v. 51). According to Victor Paul Furnish, “Paul believes that at least some Christians (likely including himself) will survive until Christ’s return; see also 1 Thess. 4:15” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on 1 Cor. 15:51). This change will happen “in a moment,” he says, “in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed” (v. 52). For “the last trumpet,” Furnish refers to “Mt. 24:31; 1 Thess. 4:16; Rev. 8:2; also Isa. 27:13,” and for the words, “we will be changed,” he refers to Phil. 3:21; 2 Baruch 51:1-6” (ibid., on v. 52). Paul spells out his expectation for the Second Coming of Christ “at the last trumpet.” What he says here may be compared with 1 Thessalonians 4:14-17, where the expression, “to meet the Lord,” has been described as “to form a delegation to greet a ruler” (Abraham Smith, NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on 1 Thess. 4:17).

Paul continues to discuss the resurrection body, saying, “For this perishable body must put on imperishability, and this mortal body must put on immortality” (v. 53). For “put on immortality,” Furnish refers to 2 Cor. 5:4 (ibid., on v. 53). Here Paul’s focus is on the change from the physical body to the spiritual. There is a change from “this perishable body” and “this mortal body” to “imperishability” and “immortality” (vv. 53, 54). As noted, this change has been anticipated by the metaphor of the seed that is “sown in dishonor, [but] raised in glory” (v. 43; cf. vv. 36-38), and the related references to “both heavenly bodies and earthly bodies” (v. 40) and the contrast between Adam, “the first man [who] was from the earth” and Christ, “the second man [who] is from heaven” (v. 47), the “man of dust” and “the man of heaven” (v. 48). “When this perishable body puts on imperishability, and this moral body puts on immortality,” says Paul, a scriptural saying “will be fulfilled” (v. 54a). “Death has been swallowed up in victory,” says Paul (v. 54b, citing Isa. 25:8). Continuing to quote, Paul asks–better, exclaims–“Where, O death is your victory? / Where, O death, is your sting” (v. 55, citing Hos. 13:14). Death does not win the battle against us for, though “the sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law” (v. 56), nevertheless, “thanks be to God who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ” (v. 57). That would be victory over death. “Therefore, my beloved” he concludes, “be steadfast, immovable, always excelling in the work of the Lord, because you know that in the Lord your labor is not in vain” (v. 58). Richard A. Horsley takes note of Paul’s burst of enthusiasm here:

In the final step of his argument–and of the whole body of the letter–Paul suddenly, in an almost ecstatic exclamation, launches into his own distinctive vision. As in 2:;7-8, he identifies this as a mystery, the technical term in Jewish revelatory literature for God’s plan of fulfillment of history. This ‘mystery’ seems particularly appropriated to the Corinthian situation, with its emphasis on suddenness and the transformation when the dead will be raised imperishable. (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on 1 Cor. 15:58).

Matthew 12:1-14

This text is presented, together with parallel accounts from Mark and Luke, in the following table.

The following comments are based on those of May 23, 2008 (Friday in the week of the Sunday closest to May 18, Year Two), when comments were repeated from October 24, 2007 (Wednesday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 19, Year One), comments that were repeated from October 19, 2005 (Wednesday in the week of the Sunday closest to October 19, Year One). For recent comments based on Mark’s version of these accounts, see the comments on Mark 2:23-3:6 in the Archive for July 16, 2009 (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to July 13, 2007, Year One). For recent comments on Luke’s version, see comments on Luke 6:1-11 in the Archive for May 4, 2009 (Monday in the week of the Fourth Sunday of Easter, Year One).

The first Sabbath controversy in this reading is set at a time when “Jesus went through the grainfields on the sabbath [and] his disciples . . . hungry, . . . began to pluck heads of grain and to eat” (Mt. 12:1; cf. Mk. 2:23; Lk. 6:1). When the Pharisees see it they challenge the disciples’ action: “Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the sabbath” (Mt. 12:2). In Mark and Luke the challenge takes the form of a question. “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the sabbath?” (Mk. 2:24); “Why are you doing what is not lawful on the sabbath?” (Lk. 6:2). In response, Jesus asks, “Have you not read what David did when he and his companions were hungry?” (Mt. 12:3; cf. Mk. 2:25; Lk. 6:4). And he explains: “He entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him or his companions to eat, but only for the priests” (Mt. 12:4; cf. Mk. 2:26; Lk. 6:4; the ref. here is to 1 Sam. 21:1-6). The priest in this account was Ahimelech (1 Sam. 21:1, 2); Matthew and Luke eliminate Mark’s apparently mistaken reference to Abiathar, though Abiathar, while not yet priest, may have been involved, since, as Mordechai Cogan puts it, he “escaped the slaughter of the priests of Nob and joined David’s outlaw band (1 Sam. 22:2[0]-23)” (Harper’s Bible Dictionary, rev. ed., 1996, s.v. Abiathar).

Matthew only includes another question for the Pharisees. “Or have you not read in the law that on the sabbath the priests in the temple break the sabbath and yet are guiltless?” (Mt. 12:5). J. Andrew Overman calls this a “denunciation of the priests in the Jerusalem Temple, possibly referring to Num. 28:9-10)” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Mt. 12:5-6). According to Matthew, Jesus adds, “I tell you, something greater than the temple is here” (Mt. 12:6). And he quotes Hosea 6:6, “I desire mercy and not sacrifice” (quoted here, v. 7, and in 9:13; cf. Overman, on v. 7).

In Mark Jesus explains that “the sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the sabbath” (Mk. 2:27), which lead into the “punch line,” as it were: “so the Son of Man is lord even of the sabbath” (Mk. 2:28; cf. Mt. 12:8, beginning with “for”; Lk. 6:5, where the saying has no conjunction, but says ‘The Son of Man is lord of the sabbath’).

Another Sabbath controversy occurs in connection with a healing in a synagogue, when a man was present with “a withered hand” (Mt 12:9, 10a; Mk. 3:1; ‘a man whose right hand was withered’ Lk. 6:6). According to Mark, they, that is, the Pharisees (cf. Mk. 2:24; 3:6), “watched him to see whether he would cure him on the sabbath, so that they might accuse him” (Mk. 3:2; cf. Lk. 6:7). In Matthew, it’s a direct challenge. “They asked him, ‘Is it lawful to cure on the sabbath?’ so that they might accuse him” (Mt. 12:10b). In Mark, Jesus proceeds directly to the healing (Mk. 3:3). Luke points out that he did what he did “even though he knew what they were thinking” (Lk. 6:8a). But Matthew has Jesus lead up to the healing with rhetorical questions that turn the challenge back on the Pharisees. “He said to them, ‘Suppose one of you has only one sheep and it falls into a pit on the sabbath; will you not lay hold of it and lift it out? How much more valuable is a human being than a sheep! So it is lawful to do good on the sabbath’ ” (Mt.12:11-12).

It was apparently common among Jews of Jesus’ day to help an animal on a sabbath day (cf. Mt. 12:11), but the Essenes apparently would not (cf. CD 11:13-14 and Overman, on vv. 9-14). According to Dale C. Allison, Jr.,

Probably many but not most Jewish teachers of Jesus’ day would have thought it wrong, unless a life were at risk, to heal on a sabbath. In defence Jesus . . . appeals not to scriptural precept or example . . . but to the human sentiment of his hearers. He assumes that their common practice is to help animals on a sabbath . . . He then makes the inference from the lesser to the greater: if it is lawful to do go to an animal on a sabbath, surely it is lawful to do good to a human on a sabbath. (The Oxford Bible Commentary, 2001, 860, on Mt. 12:9-14).

Then Jesus healed the man. “Stretch out your hand,” he said, and when “he stretched it out . . . it was restored, as sound as the other” (Mt. 12:13; cf. Mk. 3:5; Lk. 6:10). Mark notes that Jesus “was grieved at their hardness of heart” (Mk. 3:5), and Luke notes that the scribes and Pharisees (6:7) “were filled with fury” (v. 11); but all report their decision to destroy Jesus (Mt. 12:14; Mk. 3:6) or discussion of “what they might do to Jesus” (Lk. 6:11). It seems that the “plot” of the Book of Mark is this “plot” (conspiracy) against Jesus, which was anticipated from the beginning of the Sabbath healing account (Mk. 3:2; cf. Mt. 12:10; Lk. 6:7). One might think that it comes very early in Mark (chap. 3) as compared with Matthew and Luke, where major speeches come earlier, but given the pace of action in Mark, the timing of this conspiracy is comparable in Mark to the other two Gospels.

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net