Amos 7:10-17

Amaziah Complains to the King

10 Then Amaziah, the priest of Bethel, sent to King Jeroboam of Israel, saying, "Amos has conspired against you in the very center of the house of Israel; the land is not able to bear all his words. 11 For thus Amos has said,

'Jeroboam shall die by the sword,

and Israel must go into exile

away from his land.' "

12 And Amaziah said to Amos, "O seer, go, flee away to the land of Judah, earn your bread there, and prophesy there; 13 but never again prophesy at Bethel, for it is the king's sanctuary, and it is a temple of the kingdom."

14 Then Amos answered Amaziah, "I am no prophet, nor a prophet's son; but I am a herdsman, and a dresser of sycamore trees, 15 and the LORD took me from following the flock, and the LORD said to me, 'Go, prophesy to my people Israel.'

16 "Now therefore hear the word of the LORD.

You say, 'Do not prophesy against Israel,

and do not preach against the house of Isaac.'

17 Therefore thus says the LORD:

'Your wife shall become a prostitute in the city,

and your sons and your daughters shall fall by the sword,

and your land shall be parceled out by line;

you yourself shall die in an unclean land,

and Israel shall surely go into exile away from its land.' " (Amos 7:10-17, NRSV)

The following comments are based on those of December 11, 2007 (Tuesday in the week of the Second Sunday of Advent, Year Two), when comments were repeated with editing and supplement from December 6, 2005 (Tuesday in the week of the Second Sunday of Advent, Year Two), when there was some comparison with comments from an email sent December 8, 2003, for December 9, 2003:

In his Introduction to the Book of Amos, Gregory Mobley lists different types of material, including “one narrative, about Amos’s encounter with Amaziah, priest of the Northern Kingdom’s royal sanctuary at Bethel (7:10-17)” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007). Today’s reading is that “one narrative,”that is, apart from reports of having seen visions, and the like. In the narrative, Amaziah, the priest of Bethel, reports Amos’s words about King Jeroboam II to the King, tells Amos to go away, and Amos responds. “Then Amaziah, the priest of Bethel, sent to King Jeroboam of Israel, saying, ‘Amos has conspired against you in the very center of the house of Israel; the land is not able to bear all his words. For thus Amos has said, ‘Jeroboam shall die by the sword, / and Israel must go into exile / away from his land’ ” (Amos 7:10-11). According to Mobley, “This piece, a narrative illustration of 2:12 in the form of a dramatic encounter between the royal priest and the prophet, the classic outsider, is placed at this point in the book perhaps because its reference to King Jeroboam (v. 10) fits well next to the phrase ‘house of Jeroboam’ (v. 9). Amaziah was the official priest of the royal shrine at Bethel” (ibid., on Amos 7:10-17). Mobley points out that Amaziah, with the phrase, “For thus Amos has said,” “does not attribute the prophet’s words to God. The first utterance Amaziah cites (Jeroboam shall die . . .) is the rough but not exact equivalent of 7:9; the second phrase (Israel must go . . .) of 4:2-3; 5:5, 26-27; 6:7; 9:4)” (ibid., on v. 11). In fact, Amaziah misquotes Amos as saying “Jeroboam shall die by the sword” (v. 11), for Amos, quoting the LORD, had said, “I [i.e., the LORD] will rise against the house of Jeroboam with the sword” (v. 9). Jeroboam in fact died a natural death, “slept with his ancestors” (2 Kgs. 14:29), but his son Zechariah, who “reigned over Israel in Samaria six months” (2 Kgs. 15:8) was assassinated by Shallum (2 Kgs. 15:10). Gene M. Tucker, revised by J. Andrew Dearman, says, “Amos is accused of conspiracy against the state because of words of judgment such as those found in v. 9” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Amos 7:10-11). According to Ehud Ben Zvi, “Amos’s prophecy was considered treasonous because it would demoralize the people” (The Jewish Study Bible, 2004, on Amos 7:11).

We are not told how Jeroboam responds to the announcement of his imminent death, but he presumably concurs with Amaziah’s order to leave: “O seer (hz,Ho, chōzeh),” says Amaziah, “go, flee away to the land of Judah, earn your bread there, and prophesy (xben0!T9, tinnāvē’ ) there; but never again prophesy (xben0!h9l4 l ^ehinnāvēh) at Bethel, for it is the king’s sanctuary, and it is a temple of the kingdom” (vv. 12-13). According to Tucker and Dearman, “Amaziah does not challenge the right of Amos to prophesy, but only his authority to speak at the royal sanctuary and, by implication, in the kingdom of Israel” (op. cit., on vv. 12-13). Ben Zvi says, “The prophet is a Judahite, and so Amaziah sends him back [or tries to send him back] to Judah” (op. cit., on v. 12). Are we in a position to say whether Amos is a prophet or not? According to William L. Holladay, the term hz,Ho (chōzeh, “seer”) was “originally distinguished from xyb9n! (nāvî’, ‘prophet’), [but] then [became] identical: chōzēh dāwîd (hzeHo dyv9D!) 2 Sam. 24:11” [in reference to Gad, “David’s seer] (Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon, 1971, s.v. hz@Ho, chōzēh). Holladay adds that the term is “used with contempt [in] Am. 7:12.” There is some irony here, for as Mobley noted (above), Amaziah has not acknowledged Amos’s words as from God (v. 11).

Amos first replies to Amaziah that he is not a prophet. “I am no prophet (xyb9n!, nāvî’ ), nor a prophet’s son (xyb9n!-NB,, ben-nāvî’), but I am a herdsman (rq2OB, bôqēr) and a dresser (sleOB, bôlēs) of sycamore trees” (v. 14), but he qualifies that, for he adds, “the LORD took me from following the flock, and the LORD said to me, ‘Go prophesy (xben0!h9, hinnāvē’ ) to my people Israel” (v. 15). According to Tucker and Dearman, “Amos asserts the authority of his divine vocation against the authority of the priest” (op. cit., on v. 15). Although the noun “vision” (NOzHA, chāzôn) does not appear in the Book of Amos, we are told at the outset that the book contains “the words (yreb4D9, divrê) of Amos . . . which he saw (hz!HA, chāzāh) concerning Israel” (1:1). And though Amos denies being a “prophet” (xyb9n!, nāvî’ ), using the noun, he acknowledges Gods command for him to “prophesy” (xben0!h9, hinnāvē’ ), using the related verb, which even Amaziah uses when he tells Amos to return home “and prophesy (xben0!T9, tinnāvē’ ) there (v. 12).

And so Amos pronounces “judgment . . . upon Amaziah and his household because he has opposed the word of God” (ibid., on vv. 16-17). “Now therefore,” says Amos, “hear the word of the LORD. / You say, ‘Do not prophesy against Israel, / and do not preach against the house of Isaac’ ” (v. 16). And he continues with what Mobley calls “a dreadful string of curses” (op. cit., on v. 17): “Therefore thus says the LORD: / 'Your wife shall become a prostitute in the city, / and your sons and your daughters shall fall by the sword, / and your land shall be parceled out by line; / you yourself shall die in an unclean land, / and Israel shall surely go into exile away from its land’ ” (v. 17). The time when Jeroboam II was king of the northern kingdom of Israel has been called a “second golden age,” the first being the times of David and Solomon. The prosperity of this time is evident in the luxuries which Amos condemns, e.g. double houses, “winter” “and summer,” and “houses of ivory” (3:15), “beds of ivory” (6:4), idle pursuits (6:5-6), not a condemnation of riches per se, but rather because they have been accumulated through unjust practices (2:7-8; 4:1; 5:24; 6:12-13). It did not take long for Amos’s predictions of disaster to be fulfilled. The tragic and precipitous downfall of the northern kingdom after Jeroboam's time is interspersed with the ongoing story of the southern kingdom of Judah in 2 Kings 15-17. Of the six kings who succeeded Jeroboam, four took the throne by conspiracy, usurpation, each killing his predecessor (2 Kgs. 15:10, 14, 25, 30), this in the shadow of the advancing Assyrian menace. Additional details of the northern kingdom’s precipitous slide from prosperity to oblivion were noted yesterday. Lord, save us from such a fate!

Revelation 1:9-16

9 I, John, your brother who share with you in Jesus the persecution and the kingdom and the patient endurance, was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. 10 I was in the spirit on the Lord's day, and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet 11 saying,”Write in a book what you see and send it to the seven churches, to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamum, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea.”

12 Then I turned to see whose voice it was that spoke to me, and on turning I saw seven golden lampstands, 13 and in the midst of the lampstands I saw one like the Son of Man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden sash across his chest. 14 His head and his hair were white as white wool, white as snow; his eyes were like a flame of fire, 15 his feet were like burnished bronze, refined as in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of many waters. 16 In his right hand he held seven stars, and from his mouth came a sharp, two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining with full force. (Revelation 1:9-16, NRSV)

On December 30, 2008 (Tuesday in the week of the First Sunday after Christmas, Refs. for December 30 [Presbyterian and Lutheran], Year One), when the reading was Revelation 1:9-20, comments were based on earlier comments as noted there. The following comments are based on relevant comments from the earlier occasions:

John continues to address “the seven churches that are in Asia” (1:4), but his audience is not limited to those churches when he identifies himself as “I, John, your brother who share with you in Jesus the persecution and the kingdom and the patient endurance” (v. 9a). He says he “was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus” (v. 9b). According to Adela Yarbro Collins, Patmos was “one of the Sporades Islands in the Aegean Sea . . . about thirty-seven miles southwest of Miletus, a city on the coast of western Asia Minor” (Harper’s Bible Dictionary, rev. ed., 1996, s.v. Patmos). Collins adds,

Early Christian tradition says that John was banished to Patmos by the Roman authorities. This tradition is credible because banishment was a common punishment used during the Imperial period for a variety of offenses. Among such offenses were the practices of magic and astrology. Prophecy was viewed by the Romans as belonging to the same category, whether pagan, Jewish, or Christian. Prophecy with political implications, like that expressed by John in the book of Revelation, would have been perceived as a threat to Roman political power and order. Three of the islands in the Sporades were places where political offenders were banished (Pliny Natural History 4.69-70; Tacitus Annals 4.30). (ibid.)

According to David E. Aune, “There is no evidence that it was ever a Roman penal colony, but John may have been banished from his home territory and forced to go there during the reign of the emperor who banished him” (HarperCollins Study Bible, rev. ed., 2006, on Rev. 1:9). Bruce M. Metzger says that “Patmos [was] a rocky island, about ten by five miles, in the Aegean, where John had been exiled” (NOAB, 2^nd ed., 1994, on Rev. 1:9-20 [esp. v. 9] ). Metzger also says,

Although parts of the book (e.g. ch. 11) may have been reduced to writing before the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, it is probable that the author, whose name is John (11:;1, 4, 9; 22:8), put the book in its present form toward the close of the reign of the Emperor Domitian (A.D. 81-96). It was then that Domitian began to demand that his subjects address him as ‘Lord and God’ and worship his image. For refusing to do so, many Christians were put to death (6:9; 13:15; others, like John (1:9), were exiled, and all were threatened. (ibid., in the Introduction to Revelation)

So, though not a martyr–at least not yet–John was in some sense a victim of oppression and persecution perpetrated by the Roman authorities. However, more important than his physical surroundings or circumstances, John makes it plain that, like the prophets of old who spoke the word of the Lord, he writes this book under divine inspiration. “I was in the spirit on the Lord’s day,” he says, “and I heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet saying, ‘Write in a book what you see and send it to the seven churches, to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamum, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea” (vv. 10-11). “In the spirit,” says Metzger, means “in a state of prophetic illumination,” and “Lord’s day,” means “Sunday” (ibid., on v. 10).

While each of the seven churches in Asia is addressed in turn (chaps. 2, 3), the book as a whole is addressed to one and all among Christian believers. It closes with the Lord’s open-ended invitation, “‘Come!’ / And let everyone who hears say, ‘Come!’ / And let everyone who is thirsty come. / Let anyone who wishes take the water of life as a gift” (22:17). But in the present context, the voice behind John instructs him to “write in a book what you see and send it to the seven churches,” which are then listed by name in the order in which they will be addressed (1:11): Ephesus (2:1-7), Smyrna (2:8-11), Pergamum (2:12-17), Thyatira (2:18-29, Sardis (3:1-6), Philadelphia (3:7-13), and Laodicea (3:14-22).

John says that he turned “to see whose voice it was that spoke to me, and on turning I saw seven golden lampstands” (v. 12). The lampstands symbolize the seven churches, in the midst of which John sees “one like the Son of Man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden sash across his chest” (v. 13). In this vision John sees the presence of the exalted Christ in the midst of the churches that he is addressing. But the language continues to relate to Daniel’s vision of the “Son of Man (Dan. 7:13-14; cf. Rev. 1:7). “One like the Son of Man,” says Aune, is “an allusion to Dan. 7:13 (see also Rev. 1:7; 14:14); the Greek text has ‘one like a son of man,’ lacking the definite article characteristic of the title ‘the Son of Man in the Gospels” (op. cit., on v. 13). Ruiz (building on the work of Bruce M. Metzger) calls attention to an impressive array of Old Testament imagery relating to the power and majesty of God himself.

In the midst of the churches (see v. 20) stands the exalted Christ, whose royalty, eternity, wisdom, and immutability are suggested by means of symbols; the effect is that of terrifying majesty (compare v. 17 with Isa. 6:5). [The] seven golden lampstands [are] reminiscent of those that stood in the wilderness tabernacle and in the Jerusalem Temple (cf. Zech. 4:1-14). [For] Son of Man (cf. 14:14; Mk. 2:10), a title Jesus used of himself, had two meanings (1) a typical human being in accordance with a common extended meaning of ‘son of’ (see Mt. 5:45); (2) a reference to the heavenly figure of Dan. 7:13-14 who was to embody God’s rule over the nations. (op. cit., on Rev. 1:12-26; cf. Metzger, op. cit., on Rev. 1:12-16).

The description of Christ seems to merge here into the image of the Ancient One (Dan. 7:13). “His head and his hair were white as white wool, white as snow; his eyes were like a flame of fire, his feet were like burnished bronze, refined as in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of many waters” (Rev. 1:14-15). With the words, “sound of many waters, Ezekiel also makes a similar comparison with the voice of the Almighty (Ezek. 1:24; 43:2),” says Metzger (ibid.). “In his right hand,” continues John, “he [i.e., the ‘one like the Son of Man,’ v. 13] held seven stars, and from his mouth came a sharp, two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining with full force” (v. 16). In tomorrow’s reading we get John’s reaction to this vision of Christ.

Matthew 22:34-46

The Greatest Commandment (Mk 12.28-34; Lk 10.25-28)

34 When the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together, 35 and one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. 36 "Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?" 37 He said to him, " 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

The Question about David's Son (Mk 12.35-37; Lk 20.41-44)

41 Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them this question: 42 "What do you think of the Messiah? Whose son is he?" They said to him, "The son of David." 43 He said to them, "How is it then that David by the Spirit calls him Lord, saying,

44 'The Lord said to my Lord,

"Sit at my right hand,

until I put your enemies under your feet" '?

45 If David thus calls him Lord, how can he be his son?" 46 No one was able to give him an answer, nor from that day did anyone dare to ask him any more questions. (Matthew 22:34-46, NRSV)

The following comments are based on comments on Matthew 22:23-40 of July 5, 2008 (Saturday in the week of the Sunday closest to June 29, Year Two) and comments on Matthew 22:41-46 of April 30, 2008 (Wednesday in the week of the Sixth Sunday of Easter, Year Two), and on earlier comments as noted on those occasions. Parallel passages for this reading are presented in separate files, the First commandment, the Shema in the Gospels, and David’s Son or David’s Lord.

On the First (Great) Commandment

After the Sadducees’ question for Jesus about the Resurrection, the Pharisees return, and “one of them, a lawyer,” asks, “Which commandment in the law is the greatest?” (Mt. 22:36; cf. Mk. 12:28). In Luke, the question is not about the greatest (Mt.) or first (Mk.) commandment, but rather, a lawyer asks, “Teacher . . . what must I do to inherit eternal life” (Lk. 10:25). In Luke, Jesus responds with leading questions, “What is written in the law? What do you read there?” (Lk. 10:26). But Jesus’ answer in all three gospels cites the Shema (Deut. 6:5) and Leviticus 19:18: Mark cites the initial summons, “Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one” (Mk. 12:29); compare “Hear O Israel: The LORD is our God, the LORD alone” (Deut. 6:4). Each of the Synoptic Gospels cites the next verse from Deuteronomy: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind” (Mt. 22:37; cf. Mk. 12:29-30; Lk. 10:27a). But there are some subtle variations in the key terms as indicated in the following table:

Where the Hebrew text of Deuteronomy 6:5 has three key terms, “heart” (bb!l2, lēvāv), “soul”(wp!n!, nefeš), and “might” (dxom4, m^e’ ōd), the Septuagint (LXX) translates with approximately equivalent Greek terms. Mark and Luke have equivalent terms, but with “strength” ( ijscuvV, ischys) for “might” (dxom4, m^e’ ōd), which, though nearly synonymous, differs from  duvnamiV (dynamis) in the LXX. Apparently, based on the complex set of meanings for “heart” (bb!l2, lēvāv) in Hebrew (see the table, above), of which the Evangelists, and/or their sources in tradition, were aware, each Gospel includes “mind” ( diavnoia, dianoia) as well as “heart” (kardiva, kardia). This apparently double translation of “heart,” means that Mark and Luke have four terms, with the order of the last two reversed in Luke from Mark’s order; Matthew, however, has no equivalent of “might” ( ijscuvV, ischys); the inclusion of this phrase in a few manuscripts (q f and others, perhaps Old Latin (e), in parentheses as shown, and the Syriac Peshito, cf. the apparatus in Novum Testamentum Graece, Eberhard Nestle, Erwin Nestle, and Kurt Aland, edd., 25^th ed., 1964), is clearly an assimilation to the text of the other Gospels.

Regardless of the subtle differences implied by the various terminology, the main point is the call for the whole human person, personality and all, for love of God and commitment to him and his righteousness. In Matthew’s version, Jesus follows the quotation of Deuteronomy 6:5 by saying, “This is the greatest and first commandment (Mt. 22:38). Jesus follows, in Matthew with an evaluation, which echoes the lawyer’s introductory question (v. 36), “This is the greatest and first commandment” (Mt. 22:38). But, though not asked about a “second” ( deutevra. deutera) commandment, Jesus adds one, “second,” that is, in position or importance, not in time or mere numerical sequence (cf. BDAG, s.v. deuvteroV, deuteros): “And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself’ ” (Mt. 22:39, citing Lev. 19:18). Mark presents the “second” commandment in connection with an evaluation of both. “The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these” (Mk. 12:31, also based on Lev. 19:18). Luke condenses the two commandments into one statement (Lk. 10:27). Perhaps this discussion is so brief in Luke because he is leading up to the Parable of the Good Samaritan (as indicated in the table in the separate file, the Shema in the Gospels, mentioned above).

In Matthew, Jesus emphasizes the importance of these two commandments as the epitome of the Hebrew Bible, or at least its two main sections: “On these two commandments hang all the law (novmoV, nomos = Tôrāh) and the prophets (profh:tai, prophētai = N ^e vî ’ îm)” (Mt. 22:40). According to E. E. Tilden and B.M. Metzger, “The Law contains many ways of applying to life the principle of Love” (NOAB, 2^nd ed., 1994, on Mt. 22:40) Dale C. Allison, Jr., points out that Akiba, a leading rabbi and martyr in the time of the second Jewish revolt against Rome (early 2^nd century A.D.), called Leviticus 19:18 “the greatest principle in the law” (The Oxford Bible Commentary, 2001, p. 874, on Mt. 22:34-40, citing Sipre Lev. 19:18). Allison adds: “Together [these two commandments] summarizes the Decalogue (cf. Philo, Dec. 19-20, 50-1, 106-10, 121, 154). Jesus, although asked for the greatest commandment, answers with two which are inextricable” (ibid.).

In Mark, the scribe who raised the question about the “first” commandment (Mk. 12:28) responds to Jesus’ answer by agreeing and commending it. “You are right, Teacher,” says the scribe, “you have truly said that ‘he is one and besides him there is no other’; and ‘to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding and with all the strength,’ and ‘to love one’s neighbor as oneself,’–this is much more important that all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices’ (Mk. 12:32-34). And Jesus responds in kind: “When Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, ‘You are not far from the kingdom of God.’ ” (Mk. 12:34a). And “after that,” Mark tells us, “No one dared to ask him any question” (v. 34b). So we note that Jesus himself initiates the following discussion on whether the Messiah is David’s son or David’s Lord (Mk. 12:35-37; Mt. 22:41-45).

On Jesus’ Question about whether the Messiah is David’s Son or David’s Lord

Jesus poses a question to the Pharisees who were gathered together (Mt. 22:41, cf. v. 34). “What do you think of the Messiah?” he asks. “Whose son is he” In response, they say, “The son of David” (v. 42). At this, according to Dale C. Allison, Jr., “Jesus abandons his defensive posture [that is, in responding to a series of challenges, the Question about Paying Taxes, 22:15-22, about the Resurrection, vv. 23-33, and about the Greatest Commandment, vv. 34-40] and takes the offensive” (The Oxford Bible Commentary, 2001, p. 874, on Mt. 22:41-46). Earlier, the morning after the cleansing of the temple, the chief priests and elders challenged Jesus, asking “By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority?” (Mt. 21:23). But in the ensuing dialogues and parables, Jesus clearly takes the lead and is in control, as here. In Mark and Luke he simply introduces the subject of David’s son with a rhetorical question. “How can the scribes/they say that the Messiah is the son of David?” (Mk. 12:35b; Lk. 20:41).

Jesus points out an apparent enigma, if not a contradiction, implied by the Pharisees’ answer here. “How is it then,” he asks, “that David by the Spirit calls him Lord” (v. 43), and he cites Psalm 110:1

The Lord said to my Lord,

‘Sit at my right hand,

until I put your enemies under your feet?’ (v. 44, citing Ps. 110:1)

As for the wording of the Psalm quotation, Matthew and Mark end with “until I put your enemies under your feet” (Mt. 22:44c; Mk. 12:36d), whereas Luke and the Psalm itself say “until I make your enemies your footstool” (Ps. 110:1; Lk. 20:43). In the Psalm, “footstool” is the reading of both the Hebrew (Mdoh3, h^a dōm) and Greek ([LXX Ps. 109:1], uJpopovdion, hypopodion) texts. Mark apparently interpreted the reference to the footstool with “put your enemies under your feet,” and was followed by Matthew. Here the words “my Lord” in the line, “the LORD said to my Lord,” are understood as a reference to the Messiah. On the understanding of the Psalm as written by David, Jesus’ implication is that King David has addressed the Messiah as “my Lord.” With a rhetorical question, Jesus points out the “contradiction.” “If (Mt.) David thus / himself (Mk.) calls him Lord; so (Mk., Lk.) How can he be his son?” (Mt. 22:45; Mk. 12:37a; Lk. 20:44). In the Psalm, the first “LORD” (YHWH, pronounced ’adōnay, plural) refers to God, and the second (“my lord,” yn9dox3, ’adōnî, singular) is understood as a reference to the Messiah, or so Jesus could assume for his hearers. In effect, then, the question is, How can the Messiah be David’s son since David himself spoke by divine inspiration and called the Messiah “my lord”? J. Andrew Overman says, “The argument turns on the belief that the offspring cannot be greater than the progenitor” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Mt. 22:44). In the Old Testament context of the Psalm, according to John S. Kselman, “God promises the Davidic monarch in Jerusalem (Zion) victory over his enemies, prostrate before him” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Ps. 110:1-2), but the Psalm is frequently interpreted as a reference to Jesus in the New Testament (Acts 2:34-36; 1 Cor. 15:25, cf. vv. 27-28; Eph. 1:20; Heb. 1:13: 8:1; 10:12; 12:2). I take this as an example of what some call “the fuller sense (sensus plenior) of scripture.” Richard A. Horsley comments on Mark’s version of this dialogue: “This passage constitutes a rejection of any triumphant restoration of the Davidic state (which Bartimaeus and the shouts of the crowd may have suggested . . . , reciting one of the imperial Davidic psalms (Ps. 110:1) in the refutation” (NOAB, 3^rd ed., augmented, 2007, on Mk. 12:35-37. Jesus certainly did not intend to incite a political revolution. But Matthew puts the clincher, so to speak, on the dialogue. “No one was able to give him an answer, nor from that day did anyone dare to ask him any more questions” (Mt. 22:46). So, in the series of challenges by questioning, it appears that Jesus has the last word. “If David thus calls him Lord, how can he be his son?” (v. 45).

Ronald D. Worden, Ph.D.

rdworden@hgst.edu

deanworden@comcast.net