Isaiah 24:14-23

14 They lift up their voices, they sing for joy;

they shout from the west over the majesty of the Lord.

15 Therefore in the east give glory to the Lord;

in the coastlands of the sea glorify the name of the Lord, the God of Israel.

16 From the ends of the earth we hear songs of praise,

of glory to the Righteous One.

But I say, I pine away,

I pine away. Woe is me!

For the treacherous deal treacherously,

the treacherous deal very treacherously.

17 Terror, and the pit, and the snare

are upon you, O inhabitant of the earth!

18 Whoever flees at the sound of the terror

shall fall into the pit;

and whoever climbs out of the pit

shall be caught in the snare.

For the windows of heaven are opened,

and the foundations of the earth tremble.

19 The earth is utterly broken,

the earth is torn asunder,

the earth is violently shaken.

20 The earth staggers like a drunkard,

it sways like a hut;

its transgression lies heavy upon it,

and it falls, and will not rise again.

21 On that day the Lord will punish

the host of heaven in heaven,

and on earth the kings of the earth.

22 They will be gathered together

like prisoners in a pit;

they will be shut up in a prison,

and after many days they will be punished.

23 Then the moon will be abashed,

and the sun ashamed;

for the Lord of hosts will reign

on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem,

and before his elders he will manifest his glory. (Isaiah 24:14-23, NRSV)

On November 30, 2007 (Friday in the week of the Twenty-sixth Sunday after Pentecost, references for the week of the Sunday closest to November 23, Year One), comments were repeated with editing and supplement from November 25, 2005 (Friday in the week of the Sunday closest to November 23, Year One), when there was adaptation and supplement from November 17-18, 2003; the comments are repeated here with editing and supplement:

According to Benjamin D. Sommer, Isaiah, chapters 24-27

form a distinct section within the book of Isaiah. They refer to no specific historical situation but are concerned instead with a future time in which the world will undergo sweeping devastation, after which redemption will come to survivors from all the nations. They describe humanity as deeply sinful in general terms, but, unlike other Isaianic passages, they do not specify what humanity’s sins are, in contrast, for example, to chs. 1-3. Like 2:1-4; 4:2-6; 11:1-12:10, they portray the ultimate and lasting divine judgment of the world, but they focus to a greater extent on the break between the end of the old age and the creation of the new world order. (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, on Isa. 24-27)

These chapters, adds Sommer, “share some features with later apocalyptic literature,” which “many date . . . to the Persian or even the Hellenistic period,” but he adds,

On the other hand, they also share many features with prophecies of Isaiah, such as the doctrine of the remnant and a thoroughgoing universalism. Whether these Isaianic features result from Isaiah’s own authorship of these chs., and they should be considered protoapocalyptic, or from the influence of Isaiah’s genuine writings on them cannot be determined, but most modern scholars opt for the latter explanation. (ibid.)

Joseph Blenkinsopp says these chapters “are sometimes called the ‘Isaiah apocalypse’ because of the frequent use of eschatological motifs.” He himself describes this section as “a loose collection of passages, many beginning ‘on that day,’ some in psalm form (25:1-5; 26:7-19), [that] presents a picture of general doom” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Isa. 24-27). But even so, today’s reading interrupts this “general doom” with a note of joy. “They lift up their voices, they sing for joy; / they shout from the west over the majesty of the Lord. / Therefore in the east give glory to the Lord; / in the coastlands of the sea glorify the name of the Lord, the God of Israel” (24:14-15). The praises of the LORD are antiphonal, but the sanctuary is the whole world. In this “liturgy,” says Blenkinsopp, “the western and eastern Diasporas join; cf. 59:15b-20” (ibid., on vv. 14-23). “From the ends of the earth,” says Isaiah, “we hear songs of praise, / of glory to the Righteous One” (v. 16a, b). But this music is interrupted by a sour note. “But I say, I pine away (yl9-yz9rA, rāzî-lî), / I pine away (yl9-yz9rA, rāzî-lî). Woe me! / For the treacherous deal treacherously, / the treacherous deal very treacherously” (v. 16c, d, e, f). For yl9-yz9rA (rāzî-lî), the recent Jewish translation is “I waste away” (v. 16 NJPS (1985, 1999). According to William L. Holladay, the phrase yl9-yz9rA (rāzî-lî) is “unexplained” and occurs only here in the Hebrew Bible (A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 1971, 10^th corrected impression 1988, s.v. yz9rA, rāzî , and compare the dagger symbol [†]). Sommer says “Some group (Judeans who have been saved? human beings generally?) begins to rejoice, thinking the destruction has ended. The prophet laments, however, realizing that the judgment will continue for some time” (op. cit., on vv. 14-16). He comments on the NJPS translation, “I waste away”: “Other commentators, especially rabbinic ones, understand the Heb. to mean ‘I know a secret,’ i.e., the painful truth about the extent of the coming disaster” (ibid., on v. 16). “While the whole world praises God’s glory,” says J. J. M. Roberts, “the prophet complains that the judgment has not yet ended the treachery of the evil oppressors” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Isa. 24:14-16). Blenkinsopp says, he “has a revelation that contradicts the current euphoria” (op. cit., on v. 16).

So the continuation describes universal judgment upon the earth and its inhabitants, what Sommer calls, “a vivid description of the inescapable terror that will overtake all creation. God,” he adds, “will mete out punishments that affect not only the mighty among humanity but even nature itself” (op. cit., on vv. 17-23). Victor R. Gold and William L. Holladay call Isaiah 24:16b-23 “universal government” (NOAB, 2^nd ed., 1994, on Isa. 24:16b-23). “Terror, and the pit, and the snare / are upon you, O inhabitant of the earth!” (v. 17). There will be catastrophic destruction upon the earth. “Whoever flees at the sound of the terror / shall fall into the pit; / and whoever climbs out of the pit / shall be caught in the snare. / For the windows of heaven are opened, / and the foundations of the earth tremble” (v. 18). Gold and Holladay say, “This appears in Jer. 48:43-44” (ibid., on vv. 17-18b). According to J. J. M. Roberts, “Windows of heaven are opened [reflects] imagery taken from the Genesis story of Noah and the flood (see Gen. 7:11).” But he adds, “There may also be an allusion here to an incident in Canaanite myth in which Baal enters his temple, opens a window, and ‘utters his voice’ (i.e., thunders), whereupon the earth quakes and his enemies flee” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Isa. 24:18c). Verse 18 was likely the inspiration for Ron Rozelle’s book, The Windows of Heaven: A Novel of Galveston's Great Storm of 1900, published in June 2000 on the anniversary of that most devastating of hurricanes. In another context, the LORD promises the Judeans that if they “bring the full tithe into the storehouse . . .and thus put me to the test, he will “open the windows of heaven for you and pour down for you an overflowing blessing” (Mal. 3:10). But in the present passage, it is not blessing but judgment that comes from the windows of heaven (cf. Gen. 7:11 and Noah’s flood).

Gold and Holladay see here a “reflection of Canaanite and Babylonian mythological background” (op. cit., on vv. 18c-23). “The earth,” says Isaiah, “is utterly broken, / the earth is torn asunder, / the earth is violently shaken” (v. 19). The prophet pictures the earth as a staggering drunkard. “The earth staggers like a drunkard, / it sways like a hut; / its transgression lies heavy upon it, / and it falls, and will not rise again” (v. 20). At this point in the Book of Isaiah, we have not yet reached the glorious promises of restoration and return from Babylonian exile (chaps. 40-55). On the contrary, we are now told that “The LORD will punish / the host of heaven in heaven, / and on earth the kings of the earth” (v. 21). “They [i.e. ‘the host of heaven’] will be gathered together / like prisoners in a pit; / they will be shut up in a prison, / and after many days they will be punished” (v. 22). “The host of heaven,” says Blenkinsopp, are “rebellious astral deities destined to be overthrown and bound in the Pit; 14:12-14; cf. 1 Enoch 18:11-19; Jude 13; 2 Pet. 2:4; Rev. 9:2, 11” (op. cit., on vv. 21-23; cf. Gold and Holladay, op. cit., on vv. 21-22). King Manasseh of Judah, “built altars for all the host of heaven in the two courts of the house of the LORD” (2 Kgs. 21:5). Whether Isaiah of the eighth century B.C., familiar enough with Assyria, its religion, its destruction of the northern Israelite kingdom, and its worship of astral deities, here anticipates the abominations of Manasseh’s attempt to appease the Assyrians, or his followers make oblique reference to the sins of Manasseh, the promise here is that such idolatrous worship will be judged and brought to an end by the LORD God himself. But there will be restoration in Jerusalem. “Then the moon will be abashed, / and the sun ashamed”–both ‘astral deities’ for Israel’s neighbors–“for the Lord of hosts will reign / on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem, / and before his elders he will manifest his glory “ (v. 23). For moon . . . abashed, . . . sun ashamed,” Gold and Holladay say this is “after losing their divine status (Jer. 8:2; Deut. 17:3).

1 Peter 3:13-4:6

            Suffering for Doing Right

13 Now who will harm you if you are eager to do what is good? 14 But even if you do suffer for doing what is right, you are blessed. Do not fear what they fear, and do not be intimidated, 15 but in your hearts sanctify Christ as Lord. Always be ready to make your defense to anyone who demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in you; 16 yet do it with gentleness and reverence. Keep your conscience clear, so that, when you are maligned, those who abuse you for your good conduct in Christ may be put to shame. 17 For it is better to suffer for doing good, if suffering should be God's will, than to suffer for doing evil. 18 For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, in order to bring you to God. He was put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit, 19 in which also he went and made a proclamation to the spirits in prison, 20 who in former times did not obey, when God waited patiently in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. 21 And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you—not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers made subject to him.

            Good Stewards of God's Grace

4:1 Since therefore Christ suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same intention (for whoever has suffered in the flesh has finished with sin), 2 so as to live for the rest of your earthly life no longer by human desires but by the will of God. 3 You have already spent enough time in doing what the Gentiles like to do, living in licentiousness, passions, drunkenness, revels, carousing, and lawless idolatry. 4 They are surprised that you no longer join them in the same excesses of dissipation, and so they blaspheme. 5 But they will have to give an accounting to him who stands ready to judge the living and the dead. 6 For this is the reason the gospel was proclaimed even to the dead, so that, though they had been judged in the flesh as everyone is judged, they might live in the spirit as God does. (1 Peter 3:13-4:6, NRSV)

On April 4, 2008 (Friday in the week of the Second Sunday of Easter, Year Two), comments were repeated from November 30, 2007 (Friday in the week of the Sunday closest to November 23, Year One), when the reading was 1 Peter 3:13-22, and comments were repeated from April 28, 2006 (Friday in the week of the Second Sunday of Easter, Year Two). Reference was made there to the comments on 1 Peter 3:13-22 of November 21, 2004, two years earlier (the Sunday closest to November 23, Year Two), and the comments on 1 Peter 3:13-4:6 of November 25, 2006 (Friday of the week of the Sunday closest to November 23, Year One). The combined comments are repeated again here with some further editing and adaptation.

In the Book of First Peter, the subject of suffering was anticipated in the introductory blessing (1 Pet. 1:6), and arose again in the instructions to slaves (2:18-20) and the example of Christ's suffering (vv. 21-25; cf. yesterday's comments). A significant part of Peter’s advice is about remaining faithful to Christ and hopeful in a situation of suffering. The readers are to rejoice in the hope “for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time” (1 Pet. 1:5), “even if now for a little while you have had to suffer various trials” (v. 6). The advice for slaves (2:18-15) invokes the example of Christ’s suffering (2:21-23), and tells them “it is a credit to you if . . . you endure pain while suffering unjustly” (v. 19). “But if you endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God’s approval” (v. 20). While this theme seems to come into sharpest focus in tomorrow’s reading, “Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal that is taking place among you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you” (4:12), there is preparation for this in today’s reading.

But in today's reading the subject of suffering is treated in its own right. Peter raises a question. “Now who will harm you if you are eager to do what is good?” (3:13). We know, and Peter knows, that the answer is not always “No one, of course!” There are, it seems, those who take delight in doing just that. “But this answer,” says Peter H. Davids, “causes commentators problems, for Peter in the very next verse brings in the concept of suffering for righteousness.” So Davids takes note of the difficulty this apparent contradiction causes for some commentators, but regards verse 13 as "a transition from the idea of minimizing suffering through virtue to a renewed teaching of how to behave when one suffers anyway” (The First Epistle of Peter, NICNT, 1990, pp. 129-130 on 1 Pet. 3:13). Peter’s readers are told, “But even if you do suffer for doing what is right, you are blessed. Do not fear what they [the non-Christians who persecute or may persecute believers] fear, and do not be intimidated, but in your hearts sanctify Christ as Lord” (vv. 14, 15a), in wording that follows Isaiah 8:12-13 with a minor change or two. According to Davids,

Peter has changed Isaiah by shifting the singular ‘him’ to the plural ‘them.’ ‘The Septuagint is itself a shift from the Hebrew text (‘Do not fear what they fear’), and refers to fear of the Syro-Ephraimite alliance of Rezin and Pekah). By making it plural Peter refers it to the enemies of the Christians. Christians are not to fear their persecutors; instead, following Matt. 10:28, they are to take a longer-range perspective and fear God. (ibid., pp. 130-131, on v. 14)

Peter advises us to “Always be ready to make your defense to anyone who demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in you” (v. 15b). M. Eugene Boring says, “Following the example of Christ’s unjust suffering does not mean passivity, but active doing of good” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on 1 Pet. 3:13-17). “For it is better,” says Peter, “to suffer for doing good, if suffering should be God's will, than to suffer for doing evil” (v. 17).

The example of Christ is described in detail. He “suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, in order to bring you to God” (v. 18). This suffering was for the greatest good of all, atonement for the sins of the world. Among other values of Christ’s suffering, Davids offers the following:

Fourth, the death of Christ did not destroy him, just as death will not destroy the Christian sufferer: ‘He was put to death with respect to the flesh, but he was made alive with respect to the spirit. . . . Thus Peter contrasts the death of Christ with his resurrection, the one happening with respect to the natural fallen human condition, the flesh, and the other with respect to God and relationship to him, the spirit. In other words, Peter is not contrasting two parts of the nature of Christ, body and soul, a Greek distinction that would be read into this passage in the Fathers . . . but rather two modes of existence. . . . But he died as a whole person, not simply as a body (another meaning of ‘flesh’). Christ was made alive (and note the made alive, for here as usual the action of the Father in raising him from the dead is assumed) because of his relationship to God; therefore he was made alive with respect to the spirit, the mode of existence of the regenerate or those pleasing to God. (op cit., pp. 136-137 on 1 Pet. 3:18)

As a part of Christ’s victory over sin and death, says Peter, “he went and made a proclamation to the spirits in prison, who in former times did not obey, when God waited patiently in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water” (1 Pet. 3:19-20). “This difficult passage,” say Warren A. Quanbeck and Pheme Perkins, “may mean that Christ announced his completed work in the realm of the dead to those who in Noah’s day had been disobedient (compare 4:6)” (NOAB, 2^nd ed., 1994, on 1 Pet. 3:19-20). But M. Eugene Boring has a different view. “The precise meaning of this fragment of an ancient christological picture is unclear, but probably refers to Christ’s preaching to the imprisoned evil spirits after his resurrection to announce his own victory (cf. Gen. 6:1-4 as interpreted in 1 Enoch 10:4-6). The picture is unrelated to 4:6 and the ‘descent to the world of the dead’ of the Apostles Creed” (op. cit., on vv. 19-20). So “Spirits in prison,” is a statement that has been interpreted in different ways. Davids lists some alternatives, (1) “the souls of the faithful of the OT,” (2) “the souls who died in Noah’s flood,” (3) “the fallen angels of Gen. 6:1ff.” (4) “the demons, the offspring of the fallen angels . . . or (5) the spirits are the fallen angels, but the preacher is “Enoch, who proclaimed judgment to them” (op. cit., pp. 138-139 on 1 Pet. 3:19). Because ‘spirits’ in the NT always refers to nonhuman spiritual beings unless qualified . . .” (ibid., p. 139), Davids understands the reference here “to mean angelic or demonic beings” (ibid., p. 140). “Thus it seems likely that this passage in 1 Peter refers to a proclamation of judgment by the resurrected Christ to the imprisoned spirits, that is, the fallen angels, sealing their doom as he triumphed over sin and death and hell, redeeming human beings” (ibid., p. 141).

The chapter concludes with a statement about “baptism”: “And baptism( o{ . . . bavptisma, ho . . . baptisma), which this [i.e., the saving of ‘eight persons’ in Noah’s time ‘through water’] prefigured, now saves you—not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal ( ejperwvthma, eperōtēma) to God for [cf. NRSV text note e ‘Or a pledge to God from’] a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers made subject to him” (vv. 21-22). The word ejperwvthma (eperōtēma) is understood here to mean “a formal request, appeal” (Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich [BDAG], A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3^rd ed., 2000, s.v. ejperwvthma, eperōtēma, meaning no. (2) ). But the Lexicon includes suggestions of “a pledge,” and notes that B. Reicke “argues for a liturgical ‘stipulatio’ or injunction urging the baptismal candidate to turn sincerely to God’s way” (ibid.). According to David L. Balch and Paul J. Achtemeier, “dirt from the body [is] lit. ‘filth of the flesh,’ i.e., desires of the flesh (see 2:11; 4:2). The reading of text note e is better, seeing baptism as a pledge to God out of a good consciousness or awareness of God” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on 1 Pet. 3:21). Many see the reference to Noah’s being saved from the waters of the flood here as representing Christian water baptism. “Mention of the flood (Gen. chs. 6-8),” say Quanbeck and Perkins, “leads to a comparison with baptism: then water destroyed; now in baptism it saves” (op. cit., on v. 21). A similar application is sometimes made of Paul’s statement that, when the Israelites were leaving Egypt under Moses’s leadership, “all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea” (1 Cor. 10:2). As a member of the Quaker tradition that has emphasized spiritual baptism and spiritual communion, usually in contrast to the “outward ordinances,” one cannot help but notice that neither in the instance of Noah, nor that of Moses, did the people get wet. One can hardly object, of course, to the understanding of “Christ's baptism with water as a sign and seal of an inward work of grace” (H. Orton Wiley, Christian Theology, III, 32, on the Internet at http://wesley.nnu.edu/holiness_tradition/wiley/wiley-3-32.htm, accessed November 26, 2009). But Quakers usually emphasize the inward reality of spiritual baptism, excluding the necessity of the outward symbol. Davids says,

First, whole baptism does consist in a washing in water, it is not this outward washing (‘the removal of dirt from the body’) that is salvific. The water does not have a magical quality; neither does the outward ritual.

Second, baptism saves through a pledge or ‘answer to God’ from a ‘good conscience.’ The first term is the more critical, but unfortunately appears only here in the NT. (op. cit., p. 144, on v. 21).

Davids prefers the alternative translation pointing “to the use of the term [ejperwvthma, eperōtēma] for oracle or decision (Sir. 33:3; Dan. 4:17 in Theodotian) and its second-century use for ‘pledge’ or a formal answer to questions placed by the baptizer (e.g., Do you commit yourself to follow Christ’)” (ibid, p. 145). He adds:

That this latter is more probable appears in that some Jews also made pledges at their initiation into a community (e.g., in the Dead Sea Scrolls 1QS 1-2; 5:8-10), that this is the way the Fathers understood the passage, that the NT gives hints of such questioning (Acts 8:37;1 Tim. 6:12), and that this fits the expected thrust of the passage (i.e., not the outward washing, but the inward pledge).

If this interpretation is true, then the salvific aspect of baptism arises from the pledge of oneself to God as a response to questions formally asked at baptism. But this answer must be given from a good conscience. A half-hearted or partial commitment will not do, although it might fool people. It is the purity of the heart toward God that is important. This pledge, even in its most sincere form, however, would not be efficacious without the external objective means of salvation to grasp onto, that is, the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Following this statement that it is “through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (v. 21), Peter adds, “who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers made subject to him” (v. 22). “At the right hand of God,” say Quanbeck and Perkins, is at “the place of honor (Ps. 110:1)” (op. cit., on v. 22).

After this expansion of the reference to Christ’s suffering, Peter returns to using it as an example for the Christians. And so we come to what Balch and Achtemeier call “exhortations to the moral life that distinguishes Christians from outsiders” (op. cit., on 4:1-6). “Since therefore Christ suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same intention (for whoever has suffered in the flesh has finished with sin), so as to live for the rest of your earthly life no longer by human desires but by the will of God” (4:1-2). “Since therefore,” say Quanbeck and Perkins, “refers back to 3:18” (op. cit., on 4:1). “Has finished with sin,” say Balch and Achtemeier, “means either that those baptized are freed from sin’s power (see Rom. 6:7) or that Christ by carrying sins to the cross has dealt with them once for all (see Heb. 7:27; 9:28), not that whoever has suffered no longer sins” (op. cit., on 4:1). However, one may say, with the Holy Spirit’s help, we may live not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit (cf. Rom. 8:1-17). Peter tells his readers–or better, those hearing the letter read aloud in public worship–“You have already spent enough time in doing what the Gentiles like to do, living in licentiousness, passions, drunkenness, revels, carousing, and lawless idolatry” (1 Pet. 4:3). According to Balch and Achtemeier, “the Jewish-Christian author designates those outside the (primarily gentile) Christian community as Gentiles in keeping with the use of OT language to describe the Christian community” (ibid., on v. 3). The emphasis for Christians is on holy living. The “Gentiles,” that is, outsiders, “are surprised,” says Peter, “that you no longer join them in the same excesses of dissipation, and so they blaspheme” (v. 4). Balch and Achtemeier say, “Those who slander the new Christians’ lifestyle blaspheme God” (ibid., on v. 4). The Christian believers may consider rejection by outsiders a form of suffering, but Peter reminds them of the fate of unbelievers, who “will have to give an accounting to him who stands ready to judge the living and the dead” (v. 5). As today’s reading concludes, we are told, “For this is the reason the gospel was proclaimed even to the dead, so that, though they had been judged in the flesh as everyone is judged, they might live in the spirit as God does” (v. 6). This apparently refers not to the proclamation of judgment “to the spirits in prison” (3:19), but rather “to Christians who heard the gospel while they were alive” (Boring, on 1 Pet. 4:6; cf. Davids, pp. 154-155 on 1 Pet. 4:6; cf. the discussion of 3:19, above).

And so, in summary, we may say that some consequences for Christian living are presented here. One should “live for the rest of your earthly life no longer by human desires but by the will of God” (1 Pet. 4:2). One should avoid the past way of life “doing what the Gentiles like to do, living in licentiousness, passions, drunkenness, revels, carousing, and lawless idolatry” (v. 3). Such ways will lead to judgment (vv. 5-6).

Matthew 20:17-28

            Jesus' Third Passion Prediction (Mk 10.32-34; Lk 18.31-34)

17 While Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve disciples aside by themselves, and said to them on the way, 18 "See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn him to death; 19 then they will hand him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified; and on the third day he will be raised."

            The Request of the Mother of James and John (Mk 10.35-45)

20 Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came to him with her sons, and kneeling before him, she asked a favor of him. 21 And he said to her, "What do you want?" She said to him, "Declare that these two sons of mine will sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom." 22 But Jesus answered, "You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink?" They said to him, "We are able." 23 He said to them, "You will indeed drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left, this is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father."

24 When the ten heard it, they were angry with the two brothers. 25 But Jesus called them to him and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. 26 It will not be so among you; but whoever wishes to be great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wishes to be first among you must be your slave; 28 just as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many." (Matthew 20:17-28, NRSV)

On June 26, 2008 (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 22, Year Two), comments were repeated from November 30, 2007 (Friday in the week of the Sunday closest to November 23, Year One), when comments were repeated with editing and supplement from June 29, 2006 (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 22, Year Two), when comments were combined and revised from June 24, 2004, in an email sent June 24, 2004, for June 24-25, and from November 25, 2005 (Friday of the week of the Sunday closest to November 23, Year One). The revised comments are repeated here with editing and supplement. Parallel passages in Mark and Luke for this reading from Matthew are presented in the separate file, Third Passion Prediction; Precedence among the Disciples. For recent comments on Mark’s version, see the Archive for August 13, 2009 (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to August 10, Year One); for recent comments on Luke 18:31-43, see the Archive for June 8, 2009 (Monday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 8, Year One); for recent comments on Luke 22:24-30, see the Archive for June 25, 2009 (Thursday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 22, Year One):

There are three Passion Predictions in parallel accounts in Matthew, Mark and Luke (# 1, Mt. 16:21-23; Mk. 8:31-33; Lk. 9:22; # 2, Mt. 17:22-23; Mk. 9:30-32; Lk. 9:43-45; and # 3, Mt. 20:17-19; Mk. 10:32-34; Lk. 18:31-34). Each is followed by lessons on humility and discipleship, for example, “If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me” (Mt. 16:24; Mk. 8:34; Lk. 9:23). Note that Luke has an addition, “and take up their cross daily (kaq= hJmevran, kath’ hēmeron) and follow me.”

It may be of some interest to note the location of the three Passion Predictions in the Gospels. In Mark they appear in successive chapters, Mark 8:31-33; 9:30-32; 10:32-34. In Matthew the first two are in successive chapters (Mt 16:21-23; 17:22-23), and the third comes three chapters later (Mt. 20:17-19). In Luke, the first two come in the same chapter (Lk. 9:22; 43b-45) but the third comes nine chapters later (Lk. 18:31-34). Matthew's fourth "discourse" (Mt. 18:1-35) is a part of what separates the second and third Passion Predictions, but most notably, Luke's so-called Travel Narrative (Lk. 9:51-18:14), based on sources other than Mark, separates Luke's version of the second and third Passion Predictions. But it is clear in all the Gospels that Jesus' public ministry would end as it did. Matthew, in fact, has a fourth Prediction (Mt. 26:2; cf. Mk. 14:1 and Lk. 22:1, both of which mention the Passover but not the crucifixion).

The third Passion Prediction is presented by three Gospels with few significant differences. Matthew abbreviates some of Mark's detail about the setting (Mt. 20:17a; cf. Mk. 10:32). “They were on the road, going up to Jerusalem,” says Mark (Mk. 10:32), a statement which Matthew reduces to a (Greek) participial phrase, “While Jesus was going up to Jerusalem” (Kai; ajnabaivnwn oJ =Ihsou:V eijV +Ierosovluma, Kai anabainōn ho Iēsous eis Hierosoluma, Mt. 10:17a). Only Mark says that “Jesus was walking ahead of them” (Mk. 10:32a), that is, ahead of the disciples (cf. Mk. 10:23, 28; Mt. 19:23, 27; Lk. 18:28). And only Mark mentions their amazement and fear (Mk. 10:32b), but all tell us that Jesus “took the twelve aside” for this third Passion Prediction. “He took the twelve aside again and began to tell them what was to happen to him” (Mk. 10:32c; cf Mt. 20:17b, with “twelve disciples”; Lk. 18:31a).

Matthew and Mark describe this prediction in similar terms. According to Mark, Jesus says, “See, we are going up to Jerusalem [repeating from v. 32a], and the son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death; then they will hand him over to the Gentiles” (Mk. 10:33; cf. Lk. 18:31b). Mark introduces the statement with the conjunction hoti “that,” translated “saying” (NRSV, cf. AV/KJV with “saying” in italics). Matthew omits the second definite article in the series, “to the chief priests and [the] scribes” (Mt. 20:18) but otherwise, the saying itself is identical so far in the two Gospels. Then Mark’s statements describing what the Gentiles will do to Jesus, “they will mock him, and spit upon him, and flog him, and kill him” (Mk. 10:34a), are reduced to a compound infinitive phrase expressing purpose (eis to), “to be mocked and flogged and crucified” (Mt. 20:19b). It will be their intent (purpose) in handing him over, that he be mocked and flogged and crucified.” It is perhaps this infinitive of purpose that leads M. Eugene Boring to say, “Although Matthew is quite aware that the execution of Jesus was carried out by Gentile hands, he alters Mark to emphasize the divine sovereignty and, on the human level, Jewish responsibility” (The New Interpreter’s Bible, VIII, 1994, p. 396, on Mt. 20:17-19). Luke elaborates this description, introducing it with reference to the prophets, while reducing the double reference to going to Jerusalem to one (cf. Mk. 10:33; Lk. 18:31b, above), but adding, “everything that is written about the Son of Man by the prophets will be accomplished” (Lk. 18:31c). Luke puts the abuse by the Gentiles in the passive voice. “For he will be handed over to the Gentiles; and he will be mocked and insulted and spat upon (Lk. 18:32). “After they have flogged him,” says Jesus, according to Luke, “they will kill him” (v. 33a). Mark ends the statement of Jesus with the happier note, “and after three days he will rise again” (Mk. 10:34b); compare Matthew’s “and on the third day he will be raised” (Mt 20:19c), and Luke’s “and on the third day he will rise again” (Lk. 18:33b).

On this occasion, only Luke notes the disciples' failure to understand. “But they understood nothing about all these things; in fact, what he said was hidden from them, and they did not grasp what was said” (Lk. 18:34). However, we may compare Peter’s strong objection to the first Passion Prediction (Mk. 8:32; Mt. 16:22), and a similar reference to their failure to understand after the second Passion Prediction (Mk. 9:32 and Lk. 9:45). R. Alan Culpepper notes other places in Luke where there is a failure to understand, “the parents of the twelve-year-old Jesus in the Temple (Lk. 2:50), the “things that make for peace” that “were hidden from those in Jerusalem (19:42), where Jesus promises “that nothing is no hidden that will not come to light (8:17), and where “the meaning of these events is revealed to the disciples: ‘Then their eyes were opened’ (24:31), and ‘Then he opened their minds to understand the scriptures’ (24:45)” (The New Interpreter’s Bible, IX, 1994, p. 352, on Lk. 18:34).

As we move on to the next section, we note that in Matthew, it is "the mother of the sons of Zebedee" (Mt. 20:20) who asks for seats of honor for her sons (v. 21). In Mark, James and John themselves make the request (Mk. 10:35-37). William Barclay explains as follows:

Matthew was writing twenty-five years later than Mark; by that time a kind of halo of sanctity had become attached to the disciples. Matthew did not wish to show James and John guilty of worldly ambition, and so he puts the request into the mouth of their mother rather than of themselves. (The Gospel of Matthew, The Daily Study Bible, rev. ed., vol. 2, 1975, p. 229, on Mt. 20:20-28)

Perhaps Barclay is right; he summarizes references to some women in the Gospels and concludes “that James and John were full cousins of Jesus; and it may have been that they felt that this close relationship entitled them to a special place in his Kingdom” (ibid.). But Jesus’ response shows that James and John failed to understand the significance of what Jesus has just told them. He replies with a question. “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink?” And they say, “We are able” (Mt. 20:22; Mk. 10:39). Boring points out that Jesus’ address “shifts [from the mother] to the disciples directly” here (op. cit., p. 398, on Mt. 20:22). Thus Matthew’s report returns to following Mark, where such a “shift” was not necessary, since, In Mark’s report, the request is presented by James and John themselves (Mk. 10:35-37).

 “You will indeed drink my cup,” says Jesus, according to Matthew (Mt. 20:23a), omitting Mark’s reference to “the baptism with which I am baptized (Mk. 10:38c). In another context, Luke quotes Jesus as saying, “I have a baptism with which to be baptized, and what stress I am under until it is completed!” (Lk. 12:50). In this Lukan context, says, Marion Lloyd Soards, the “baptism [is] Jesus’ death” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Lk. 12:50. J. Andrew Overman apparently understands the “cup” in Matthew’s version as a reference to a martyr’s death in which the disciples share in Jesus’ own crucifixion. His note here is a simple reference to Acts 12:2, where it is reported that King Herod Agrippa I had James “killed with the sword” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Mt. 20:23). Boring admits that a number of texts from the Hebrew Bible and Judaism use the cup “as a symbol of suffering, testing, rejection, judgment, and violent death,” and he notes that “some interpreters have understood Jesus’ cup to be his death, conceived as the substitutionary death for sinners, absorbing God’s wrath in their place,” but he adds: “That cannot be the meaning here, since the disciples drink the same cup” (loc. cit.). However, he adds that “Martyrdom of Isaiah 5:13 shows that the cup can mean a death appointed by God, willingly accepted by the one being killed. Matthew’s later use of this image at the last supper (26:27) and Gethsemane (26:39, 42) and Jesus’ promise that the disciples will drink the same cup link the tradition of Israel’s suffering with that of Jesus and the church” (ibid.).

In the accounts of Matthew and Mark, the request for favored places in the kingdom for James and John–not reported by Luke–makes the ten others angry with them (Mk. 10:41; Mt. 20:24). One may compare the dispute that arose among them at the Last Supper “as to which one of them was to be regarded as the greatest” (Lk. 22:24). Jesus responds with teaching about authority and leadership within the Christian community that differs radically from the surrounding world. “You know,” he says, according to Mark, “that among the Gentiles those whom they recognize as their rulers lord it over them (katakurieuvousin aujtw:n, katakyrieuousin autōn) and their great ones are tyrants over them (katexousiavzousin aujtw:n, katexousiazousin autōn)” (Mk. 10:42; cf. Lk. 22:25). Matthew simplifies, perhaps, clarifies, this statement. “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them (katakurieuvousin aujtw:n, katakyrieuousin autōn), and their great ones are tyrants over them (katexousiavzousin aujtw:n, katexousiazousin autōn)” (Mt. 20:25). The first verb is well translated here as “lord it over them” (cf. Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich [BDAG], A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3^rd ed., 2000, s.v. katakurieuvw, katakyrieuō, meaning no. (2) ). The word “tyrants” comes from the translation of the other verb, “exercise authority, perhaps tyrannize tinovV over someone” (BDAG, s.v. katexousiavzw, katexousiazō ). Among the Christians, rather, Jesus says there will be very different relationships for community and governance. “But it is not so (will not be so) among you,” he says according to Mark, “but whoever wishes to become (be) great (mevgaV, megas) among you must be your servant (diavkonoV, diakonos), and whoever wishes to be first (prw:toV, prōtos) among you must be slave (dou:loV, doulos) of all (your slave” (Mk. 10:43-44; cf. Mt. 20:26-27; cf. also Lk. 22:26). According to Boring, “Over against the exalted and powerful terms used for worldly rulership, Jesus substitutes diavkonoV (diakonos, ‘deacon,’ lit., a table servant, waiter or waitress, also used as a technical term for Christian ministry) and dou:loV (doulos, lit., ‘slave’).” Boring adds that Jesus, “rather than replacing the image of kingship (potentially oppressive and always so in human kingdoms), Matthew reinterprets it in terms of Jesus as the revelation of God. First/servant ties into and further interprets the theme of reversal of first/last, dominant throughout this section [of Mt.] and ties this pericope more closely to its context” (op. cit., p. 398, on Mt. 20:25-27).

This form of leadership has been appropriately called "Servant Leadership." Barclay comments as follows:

What Jesus calls upon his followers to do he himself did. He came not to be served but to serve. He came to occupy not a throne, but a cross. It was just because of this that the orthodox religious people of his time could not understand him. All through their history the Jews had dreamed of the Messiah; but the Messiah of whom they had dreamed was always a conquering king, a mighty leader, one who would smash the enemies of Israel and reign in power over the kingdoms of the earth. They looked for a conqueror; they received one broken on a cross. (op. cit., p. 234, on Mt. 20:20-28)

The discussion concludes with Jesus describing his own mission as service such as he has prescribed for Christian leadership, “For (just as) the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve (diakonh:sai, diakonēsai), and to give his life a ransom for many” (Mk. 10:45; cf. Mt. 20:28; cf. also “But I am among you as one who serves ( oJ diakonw:n, ho diakonōn, participle, ‘the one serving’),” Lk. 22:27b). Matthew’s infinitive, “to serve,” is related to the noun diavkonoV (diakonos), “servant” or “deacon.”

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net