Have you ever felt just shattered? Mangled? Attacked by wolves or lions, so that all that is left is “two legs and a piece of an ear”? Even Amos' message does turn hopeful, eventually. Peter reminds us that God's judgment is reserved for the godless, but delayed so that he may have mercy. “The Lord...is patient with you, not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance” (2 Pet. 3:9). (Comments repeated from an E-mail sent December 2, 2003, for December 3, 2003.)

Amos 3:12-4:5

12 Thus says the Lord: As the shepherd rescues from the mouth of the lion two legs, or a piece of an ear, so shall the people of Israel who live in Samaria be rescued, with the corner of a couch and part of a bed.

13 Hear, and testify against the house of Jacob,

says the Lord God, the God of hosts:

14 On the day I punish Israel for its transgressions,

I will punish the altars of Bethel,

and the horns of the altar shall be cut off

and fall to the ground.

15 I will tear down the winter house as well as the summer house;

and the houses of ivory shall perish,

and the great houses shall come to an end,

says the Lord.

4:1 Hear this word, you cows of Bashan

who are on Mount Samaria,

who oppress the poor, who crush the needy,

who say to their husbands, "Bring something to drink!"

2 The Lord God has sworn by his holiness:

The time is surely coming upon you,

when they shall take you away with hooks,

even the last of you with fishhooks.

3 Through breaches in the wall you shall leave,

each one straight ahead;

and you shall be flung out into Harmon,

says the Lord.

4 Come to Bethel—and transgress;

to Gilgal—and multiply transgression;

bring your sacrifices every morning,

your tithes every three days;

5 bring a thank offering of leavened bread,

and proclaim freewill offerings, publish them;

for so you love to do, O people of Israel!

says the Lord God. (Amos 3:12-4:5, NRSV)

On December 5, 2007 (Wednesday in the week of the first Sunday of Advent, Year One), comments were repeated with editing and supplement from November 30, 2005 (Wednesday in the week of the First Sunday of Advent, Year Two); the comments are repeated here:

Irony–some call it sarcasm–sharpens Amos’s judgment announcements. Later in Amos there is a glimmer of hope for the “remnant”: “It may be that the LORD, the God of hosts,/will be gracious to the remnant of Joseph” (5:15), but what remains for now are broken pieces. “Thus says the LORD: As the shepherd rescues from the mouth of the lion two legs, or a piece of an ear, so shall the people of Israel who live in Samaria be rescued, with the corner of a couch and part of a bed” (3:12). Ehud Ben Zvi notes that “the lion imagery emerges again” (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, on Amos 3:12). Gregory Mobley comments, “As Amos, a pastoralist himself (7:14) knew, a shepherd was absolved of blame for loss of livestock if there were even small remnants, legs, or a piece of an ear of a predator’s attack. . . . Amos suggests that after the divine punishment, announced by the roar of a lion (1:2; 3:8), only scraps would remain from the palaces of Samaria” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Amos 3:12). “Yet, following a theme that would be developed later in this book,” says Ben Zvi, “and is developed in other prophetic books, there would be some kind of remnant” (loc. cit.).

After this prose paragraph, Amos returns to poetic oracle. “Hear, and testify against the house of Jacob, / says the Lord GOD, the God of hosts” (v. 13). The worship centers will be destroyed, for God says, “On the day I punish Israel for its transgressions, / I will punish the altars of Bethel, / and the horns of the altar shall be cut off / and fall to the ground” (v. 14). “Bethel, says Ben Zvi, is “a city and one of the main centers of worship in the Northern Kingdom. It plays an important role in the book of Amos; see 4:4; 5:5; 7:10, and is important in numerous biblical traditions (e.g., Gen. 12:8; Judg. 21:2; 1 Kings 12:20; Hos. 10:15; 12:5)” (ibid., on v. 14). Amos’s oracle continues: “I will tear down the winter house as well as the summer house; / and the houses of ivory shall perish, / and the great houses shall come to an end, / says the LORD” (v. 15). According to Gene M. Tucker, revised by J. Andrew Dearman, “Judgment against Israel will include destruction of two types of buildings, the sanctuaries (altars of Bethel) and the houses of those wealthy enough to have both a summer and a winter place” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Amos 3:13-15). Mobley says, “The LORD will raze the tokens of conspicuous Israelite consumption: the winter house, the summer house, and the houses decorated with carved ivory inlay, such as the royal palace in Samaria built by Ahab (1 Kings 22:39)” (op. cit., on v. 15). Although the following decades would see rapid decline, frequent insurrections, and the fall of Samaria to the invading Assyrian army, Amos lived in a time of relative prosperity for Israel, sometimes called a “second Golden Age,” during the reign of Jeroboam II. (The first “Golden Age” would be the times of David and Solomon.).

Wealthy wives of Samaria's merchants are mocked as “cows of Bashan”: “Hear this word, you cows of Bashan / who are on Mount Samaria, / who oppress the poor, who crush the needy, / who say to their husbands, ‘Bring something to drink!’ ” (4:1). “Bashan,” says Mobley, “was a fertile region in Northern Transjordan renowned for its cattle (Ps. 22:12). Israel’s hold on this prize testifies to its prosperity in Amos’s day” (ibid., on Amos 4:1). Ben Zvi explains the phrase “cows of Bashan,” as “in this context, elite women.” He adds, “According to the text these women oppressed the poor and encouraged their husbands to do so for their benefit. Although today it is clearly offensive to call a woman ‘a plump cow,’ it is uncertain if this was the case at the time of the composition of the book” (on 4:1). According to Tucker and Dearman, “The women are guilty of social injustice and arrogance, epitomized by what they say to their husbands” (op. cit., on 4:1). Amos is clear about their punishment. “The Lord God has sworn by his holiness: / The time is surely coming upon you, / when they shall take you away with hooks, / even the last of you with fishhooks” (v. 2). They will be taken away “through breaches in the wall,” says the prophet, “each one straight ahead; / and you shall be flung out into Harmon” (v. 3). According to Mobley, “with the city walls in ruins, the captives will be easily taken away” (op. cit., on v. 3). “The precise meaning of these verses,” says Ben Zvi, “is uncertain, but they surely point to deportation. The identity of the enemy that will exile the people is not mentioned, nor is it anywhere in the book, though exile is announced repeatedly (e.g. 5:5, 27; 6:7; 7:11, 17; cf. 9:4)” (on vv. 2-3). But given the eighth century dating of Amos’s work (1:1), one would assume that the enemy in question is Assyria, to which Samaria fell in 722 B.C.

Amos continues with another oracle (“says the Lord GOD,” (v. 5d) that presents an ironic parody of worship at Bethel and Gilgal, two worship centers in the north (cf. 5:5; 6:10-17; 9:1; Hos. 4:15). He issues a call to worship: “Come to Bethel–and transgress; / to Gilgal–and multiply transgression; / bring your sacrifices every morning, / your tithes every three days” (Amos 4:4). The parody continues to list worship practices: “Bring a thank offering of leavened bread, / and proclaim freewill offerings, publish them; / for so you love to do, O people of Israel! / says the Lord God” (v. 5). According to Mobley, “The ritual practices listed here are prescribed elsewhere; for the morning sacrifice, see Ex. 29:29; tithes, see Lev. 27:30-32; Deut. 14f:28-29; thank offering of unleavened bread, see Lev. 7:13; freewill offerings, see Num. 15:3. Note the association of tithes with Bethel in Gen. 28:22” (op. cit., on Amos 4:4-5). According to Tucker and Dearman, “Through ironic calls to worship or parodies of pilgrim songs to the traditional sanctuaries at Bethel and Gilgal (Gen. 28:10-22; Josh. 5:2-9; Am. 7:10-17, Amos asserts that worship and transgression have become synonymous (see 5:21-24)” (op. cit., on Amos 4:4-5).

2 Peter 3:1-10

3:1 This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you; in them I am trying to arouse your sincere intention by reminding you 2 that you should remember the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets, and the commandment of the Lord and Savior spoken through your apostles. 3 First of all you must understand this, that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and indulging their own lusts 4 and saying, "Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since our ancestors died, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation!" 5 They deliberately ignore this fact, that by the word of God heavens existed long ago and an earth was formed out of water and by means of water, 6 through which the world of that time was deluged with water and perished. 7 But by the same word the present heavens and earth have been reserved for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the godless.

8 But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like one day. 9 The Lord is not slow about his promise, as some think of slowness, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and everything that is done on it will be disclosed. (2 Peter 3:1-10, NRSV)

The following comments are repeated here from December 5, 2007 (Wednesday in the week of the first Sunday of Advent, Year One):

On December 3, 2006 (the First Sunday of Advent, Year One), comments were combined with revision and supplement from November 28, 2004, two years earlier (the First Sunday of Advent, Year One), and from November 30, 2005 (Wednesday in the week of the first Sunday of Advent, Year Two). The combined comments are repeated here:

By calling his letter “the second letter I am writing to you” (2 Pet. 3:1) the writer identifies with Peter and the First Epistle of Peter. He refers again to two primary sources for his instruction, “the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets,” in other words, the Hebrew Bible (our Old Testament), especially the prophetic books, and the apostolic witness to “the commandment of the Lord and Savior” (v. 2). Chapter 2 of Second Peter warns about false teachers in a manner closely similar to the Book of Jude; but it is passed over here. But the present reading is particularly concerned with “the promise of his [i.e. the Lord’s] coming” (2 Pet. 3:4). There will be “scoffers” who “indulging their own lusts” (v. 3) will ask, “Where is the promise of his coming?” (v. 4). They will point to the passage of time as “all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation!” (v. 4). The reading from Second Peter defends the Christian hope for Christ’s Second Coming against “scoffers” who “will come, scoffing and indulging their own lusts and saying, ‘Where is the promise of his coming [parousia]” (vv. 3-4). The scoffers continue, “For ever since our ancestors died, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation!” (v. 4). But Peter responds by referring to the creation of the earth “out of water” (v. 5 ), and its destruction by water (v. 6). There was judgment then, when “the world of that time was deluged with water and perished” (v. 6). This was “by the word of God” (v. 5), and the prediction of judgment is “by the same word” (v. 7). Although delayed, the next judgment will be with “fire,” for the heavens and earth are “being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the godless” (v. 7). God’s time is not counted as our time, for “with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like one day” (v. 8). Judgment and “destruction of the godless” (v. 7) have been delayed, for the Lord wants “all to come to repentance” (v. 9). It “will come” (v. 10), though the Lord “is patient with you, not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance” (v. 9). G. H. Boobyer (Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, sec. 904a, p. 1033, on 2 Pet. 3:1-13) sees in this passage an echo of a theme from chapter one, “For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming [parousia] of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1:16). He notes the term parousia in 1:16 and 3:4. The Latin Vulgate has praesentiam in 1:16, but adventus in 3:4, but whether 1:16 refers to the first “Advent” or the second, the connection with the Advent season is apparent. If you think about it, the “coming” (advent) is a precondition of the “presence” (parousia).

On November 30, 2008 (the First Sunday of Advent, Year One), comments were repeated with editing and supplement from December 5, 2007 (Wednesday in the week of the First Sunday of Advent, Year Two), when comments were repeated from December 3, 2006 (the First Sunday of Advent, Year One), when comments were combined with revision and supplement from November 28, 2004, (the First Sunday of Advent, Year One), and from November 30, 2005 (Wednesday in the week of the first Sunday of Advent, Year Two). The combined comments are repeated again with editing and supplement:

The Epistle readings pass over 2 Peter chapter 2 for now. Yesterday’s reading was the second on chapter 1 and today’s begins chapter 3. But on Friday and Saturday of this week the readings are from Jude, which is very similar to 2 Peter, chapter 2. So today’s reading begins in chapter 3 with an explanation. “This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you” (2 Pet. 3:1a). In this way, the writer identifies with Peter and the First Epistle of Peter. “In them [i.e., the two letters],” he says, “I am trying to arouse your sincere intention” (v. 1b). That intention would be that the readers appreciate the truth of the Christian gospel and remain faithful to their Christian faith and commitment (cf. 1:4-10). The writer reminds them “that you should remember the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets, and the commandment of the Lord and Savior spoken through your apostles” (v. 2). In this way, he refers again to two primary sources for his instruction, “the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets,” in other words, the Hebrew Bible (our Old Testament), especially the prophetic books, and the apostolic witness to “the commandment of the Lord and Savior.” Chapter 2 of Second Peter warns about false teachers in a manner closely similar to the Book of Jude; but the focus here is on one particular “false teaching,” promoted by “scoffers.” “First of all,” he says, “you must understand this, that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and indulging their own lusts” (v. 3). The problem posed by these scoffers is their questioning of the Christian hope and expectation of the Lord’s return, his Second Coming, as they ask, “Where is the promise of his coming (parousiva, parousia)?” (v. 4a; cf. 1 Thess. 4:15). They will point to the passage of time, saying, “for ever since our ancestors died, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation!” (v. 4b). Peter responds by drawing a parallel between the destruction of the world by flood in Noah’s time and the destruction of the world by fire in the coming “day of the Lord” (v. 10). The scoffers, he says, “deliberately ignore this fact, that by the word (lovgoV, logos) of God heavens existed long ago and an earth was formed out of water and by means of water, through which the world of that time was deluged with water and perished” (vv. 5-6). The words, “they deliberately ignore,” says Patrick A. Tiller, stand “in contrast to the repeated exhortation to ‘remember’ (1:9, 12-15; 3:1-2, 8)” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on 2 Pet. 3:5). He explains the description of creation here as “by God’s word and an original watery state” with reference to Gen. 1:2, 6-10; Ps. 33:6-7” (ibid.). Peter compares the former action through God’s word with the future expectation. “But by the same word (lovgoV, logos [i.e., God’s word] ) the present heavens and earth have been reserved for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the godless” (v. 7). “The flood destroyed the first world and made way for the present one,” says Tiller. “In the same way, fire will destroy the present world, and a third world will replace it” (ibid., on vv. 4-13). According to Richard J. Bauckham, “Jewish traditions spoke of two universal judgments, one by water (in the past), the other by fire (in the future). Fire is a common biblical image of judgment” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on 2 Pet. 3:7).

And so, though delayed, the next judgment will be with fire. The readers are to remember that God’s time is not counted as our time, for “with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like one day” (v. 8). Peter explains that the delay of the parousia is due to God’s desire for people to repent and turn to him. “The Lord is not slow about his promise, as some think of slowness, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance” (v. 9). “But the day of the Lord will [indeed] come,” says Peter, “like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and everything that is done on it will be disclosed” (v. 10). Bauckham explains the coming of “the day of the Lord ” as “a common biblical expression for the time of God’s final judgment. For its coming like a thief,” he adds, “see Mt. 24:43-44; 1 Thess. 5:2)” and “for imagery of it, see Isa 34:4; Mk. 13:25; Rev. 6:13-14. The wicked and their deeds will be disclosed to God’s judicial scrutiny” (ibid., on v. 10). G. H. Boobyer sees in this passage an echo of a theme from chapter one, “For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming [parousia] of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1:16). He notes the term parousia in 1:16 and 3:4 (Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, 1962, reprint 1972, p. 1033, on 2 Pet. 3:1-13) The Latin Vulgate has praesentiam in 1:16, but adventus in 3:4, but whether 1:16 refers to the first “Advent” or the second, the connection with the Advent season is apparent. If you think about it, the “coming” (advent) is a precondition of the “presence” (parousia).

Matthew 21:23-32

The Authority of Jesus Questioned (Mk 11.27-33; Lk 20.1-8)

23 When he entered the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came to him as he was teaching, and said, “By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority?” 24 Jesus said to them, “I will also ask you one question; if you tell me the answer, then I will also tell you by what authority I do these things. 25 Did the baptism of John come from heaven, or was it of human origin?” And they argued with one another, “If we say, 'From heaven,' he will say to us, 'Why then did you not believe him?' 26 But if we say, 'Of human origin,' we are afraid of the crowd; for all regard John as a prophet.” 27 So they answered Jesus, “We do not know.” And he said to them, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things.

The Parable of the Two Sons

28 “What do you think? A man had two sons; he went to the first and said, 'Son, go and work in the vineyard today.' 29 He answered, 'I will not'; but later he changed his mind and went. 30 The father went to the second and said the same; and he answered, 'I go, sir'; but he did not go. 31 Which of the two did the will of his father?” They said, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are going into the kingdom of God ahead of you. 32 For John came to you in the way of righteousness and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes believed him; and even after you saw it, you did not change your minds and believe him. (Matthew 21:23-32, NRSV)

On June 28, 2009 (the Sunday closest to June 29, Year One), comments were repeated from July 1, 2008 (Tuesday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 29, Year Two), when comments were repeated from December 5, 2007 (Wednesday in the week of the First Sunday of Advent, Year Two), when comments were repeated from July 1, 2007 (the Sunday closest to June 29, Year One), when they were combined, revised and supplemented from comments of June 29, 2004 in an email sent June 28, 2004, for June 28-July 4, from comments of June 26, 2005, (the Sunday closest to June 29, Year One), from November 30, 2005 (Wednesday in the week of the First Sunday of Advent, Year Two), and from July 4, 2006 (Tuesday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 29, Year Two). The combined comments are repeated here with some editing and supplement. For recent comments on Mark’s version of the question about authority, see the Archive for August 18, 2009 (Tuesday in the week of the Sunday closest to August 17, Year One). For recent comments on Luke’s version of the question about authority, see the Archive for June 13, 2009 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 8, Year One). For comments on Luke 7:29-30 about the Pharisees refusal to be baptized by John (cf. Matthew 21:28-32), see the Archive for December 7, 2008 (the Second Sunday of Advent, Year One).

For a table showing the parallel texts for the questioning of Jesus’ authority, see the separate file, Question about Authority. For Matthew’s version of Jesus’ Parable of the Two Sons, there is no parallel text, though Luke uses similar material about the response of the tax collectors as opposed to the lack of response from the Pharisees and lawyers in the context of Jesus’ witness concerning John (Mt. 11:7-19; Lk. 7:24-35; cf. Mk. 1:2); see the separate file, the Parable of the Two Sons.

On the Question about Authority

Upon Jesus’ return to Jerusalem, after the cursing of the fig tree (Mt. 21:18-22), he enters the temple and is confronted with a question. “When he entered the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came to him as he was teaching, and said, ‘By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority’ ” (Mt. 21:23; cf. Mk. 11:27-28; Lk. 20:1-2). Jesus responds with a question which leaves his challengers on the horns of a dilemma. He “said to them, ‘I will also ask you one question; if you tell me the answer, then I will also tell you by what authority I do these things” (Mt. 21:24; cf. Mk. 11:29; Lk. 20:3). And he asks, “Did the baptism of John come from heaven, or was it of human origin?” (Mt. 21:25a; Mk. 11:30a; Lk. 20:4). According to Krister Stendahl, in this first of a series of controversies during Holy Week, Jesus and officials of Judaism exchange questions and answers in typical Rabbinic fashion, “similar to such material in the Talmud” (Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, 1962, reprinted 1972, sec. 690 f, p. 791, on Mt. 21:23-27). When Jesus asks about the authority of John the Baptist, “Did the baptism of John come from heaven, or was it of human origin?” (Mt. 21:25a; cf. Mk. 11:30; Lk. 20:4), their dilemma is: “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will say to us, ‘Why then did you not believe him?’ But if we say, ‘Of human origin,’ we are afraid of the crowd, for all regard John as a prophet” (Mt.21:25-26; cf. Mk. 11:31-33; Lk. 20:5-6). So they exchange “No comment” answers, but there is a difference. They said “We do not know,” but he said “Neither will [not can] I tell you by what authority I do these things” (Mt. 21:27, emphasis added; cf. Mk. 11:33; Lk. 20:7)

In Jesus’ dialogue with officials of Judaism about his authority, the reports of Matthew, Mark and Luke are in essential agreement. The transitions to this episode vary a little. Luke puts it “one day as he was teaching in the temple” (Lk. 20:1; cf. “Every day he was teaching in the temple,” 19:47). In Matthew and Mark the return to the temple (Mt. 21:23; Mk. 11:27b) follows the return to Jerusalem (Mt. 21:18; Mk. 11:27a), which in turn follows the incident of the fig tree (Mt. 21:18-22; Mk. 11:12-14, 20-25). Luke omits Jesus’ statement, “If you tell me the answer [to the question about John’s authority], then I will tell you by what authority I do these things” (Mt. 21:24; cf. Mk. 11:29), but this seems implicit in Luke’s version, and the challengers are presented with the same dilemma, to agree that John was from God, or not to agree and incur the wrath of the people. According to Dale C. Allison, Jr., “These verses (Mt. 21:23-27) both add to the dramatic tension between Jesus and his opponents and demonstrate the character of the latter. And trailing upon the protest in the temple and the cursing of the fig tree they illustrate why the temple is doomed: the leaders have become deaf to God’s messengers” (The Oxford Bible Commentary, 2001, p. 872, on Mt. 21:23-27).

Given all that has transpired, one would expect not only the people themselves but certainly also their leaders to recognize the work of John, and of Jesus, as from God. “This section,” says Allison, “is less about Jesus–it is certainly not about his debating skills–or the Baptist than it is about the chief priests and elders” (ibid.). Their question to Jesus is presented “without reason or respect, a thing that was plain to all” (Calvin, cited by Allison). “Further,” says Allison,

out of cowardly expediency, they respond to his questions with a lie (‘we do not know’). As if that were not enough, they show themselves to be spiritually less perceptive than those over whom they preside, for the multitudes recognize John’s prophetic status. The effect of all this is to set the passion of Jesus within a moral context. Jesus’ death is not the upshot of an unfortunate misunderstanding by uninformed authorities; instead it is brought about by the plotting of self-serving men of ill will. The passion narrative depicts a struggle between good and evil. (Allison, loc. cit.)

On the Parable of the Two Sons

In the parable that follows, only in Matthew, Jesus continues with a hypothetical case, The Parable of the Two Sons is a transparent criticism of the Jewish leaders, which, accord to J. Andrew Overman, addresses “the subject of why those who are lax in observing the Mosaic law receive the kingdom of God” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Mt. 21:28-32). “What do you think?” asks Jesus. A man had two sons; he went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work in the vineyard today.’ He answered, ‘I will not’; but later he changed his mind and went” (Mt. 21:28-29). The other son both answered and did precisely the opposite as compared to the first son. “The father went to the second,” says Jesus, “and said the same; and he answered, ‘I go, sir’; but he did not go” (v. 30). The first son, upon reflection realized his duty and did it, but the other was all talk; though he said he would go, he didn’t go. Jesus’ question, “Which of the two did the will of his father?” draws out the obvious answer, “The first” (v. 31a). And Jesus turns this answer against his opponents with a comparison that puts marginal people in the role of the first son, and the religious leaders in the role of the second. “Jesus aid to them, ‘Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are going into the kingdom of God ahead of you” (v. 31b). And He explains: “For John came to you in the way of righteousness and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes believed him; and even after you saw it, you did not change your minds and believe him” (v. 32).

In an earlier context in Luke in which Jesus talks about John the Baptist (Lk. 7:18-35; cf. Mt. 11:2-19), Jesus draws the same contrast: “And all the people who heard this, including the tax collectors, acknowledged the justice of God, because they had been baptized with John’s baptism. But by refusing to be baptized by him, the Pharisees and the lawyers rejected God’s purpose for themselves” (Lk. 7:29-30). It is likely that Luke here, as often, retains the sequence of material from the source (“Q,” as many suppose), and that Matthew has grouped material topically.

For Matthew, this leads into the Parable of the Wicked Tenants (Mt. 21:33-46; Mk. 12:1-12; Lk. 20:9-19), tomorrow’s reading, which comes down hard on his opponents and predicts the destruction of the temple and the passing of authority, says Overman, to “the church or perhaps church leaders” (op. cit., on v. 41). This, of course is Matthew’s Christian perspective, and should be understood to apply to a small group of Jewish leaders at that time, not to all Jews then or now.

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net